PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 10B as well as loss on the sale of property are in accordance with the statutory provisions and, in fact, such interpretation has been accepted by various Tribunals and High Courts. 5. The Commissioner erred in concluding that the Appellant did not offer any explanation for the additions made. This is incorrect in so far as detailed explanations

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\"\n\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n\n-5-\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

penalty\nproceedings under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany

ROCA BATHROOM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

10B(4), 2.3 Erred in law and on facts in stating that the Appellant's AMP expenses result in benefits to the Associated Enterprises (AEs) of the Appellant in various forms, without placing any evidence or material on record. 2.4 Erred in not appreciating that the Appellant is characterized as a full- fledged risk bearing distributor undertaking marketing and distribution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE LTU-1, CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. ORIENT GREEN POWER COMPANY LIMITED , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

271/-. iii) Disallowance Pre-Operative expenses of Rs.76,67,347/-. iv) Addition Interest received on IT refund of Rs.18,24,0034, v) Disallowance Pooja and Donation of Rs.1,24,924/-. vi) Disallowance Provision on KOLH stock of Rs.2,00,000/- 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee has raised a ground No.1 as under: 1. 92CA- Disallowance

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs Cognizant Technology Solutions The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 096. Pan : Aaacd 3312M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds. The Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise modify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.” - 5 - ITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207, 1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024 4. Ground

PANASONIC INDIA PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 479/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Spic Building Annexe, 6Th Floor, Income Tax, 88, Mount Road, Company Circle V(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aadcp 9391B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1) (c) of the Act was vague, and hence the order pursuant to such notice was invalid. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton

DAESEUNG AUTOPARTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ACIT (OSD), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

10B(4) of the Income tax Rules, 1962 without providing any cogent reasons for the same. 16. The Learned TPO/ AO and DRP have erred in Jaw and in facts, in computing the ALP without giving benefit of +/- 5 percent under the proviso to section 92C of the Act Part 2 Corporate tax matters Disallowance of foreign exchange loss

NIPPON PAINT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.779/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the act. Ground No.1 is general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 2.0 Ground No.2.1 to 2.8 are related to the arm’s length adjustment of brand promotion fee of ₹14,11,82,140/- expenditure incurred towards the Advertising, Marketing and Promotion (in short ‘AMP’) expenses. The assessee company is engaged

EXCELLENCE DATA RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

10B(1)(e) of the Rules. Arm's length range of 5% 13. That the AO / TPO be directed to re-work the profit margins of the Appellant vis-a-vis the resultant comparable companies and to allow the benefit of + /- 5% range as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. Notional Interest on receivables from

IT EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

10B(1)(e) of the Rules. Arm's length range of 5% 13. That the AO / TPO be directed to re-work the profit margins of the Appellant vis-a-vis the resultant comparable companies and to allow the benefit of + /- 5% range as provided in proviso to Section 92C(2) of the Act. Notional Interest on receivables from

COOK INDIA MEDICAL DEVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2546/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax (Osd), 4/249A, Rasim Enclave, Corporate Circle –1(2), Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Near Savitha Dental College, Goparasanallur, Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. Pan: Aaccc7628P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2017

section 234A and 234B of the Act. 10. The learned AO has erred, in law and In facts, In initiating penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the Act; 3. The Brief facts of the case that the assessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cook Group Inc, USA which provides medical equipment services for its parent company. Cook India