DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections for issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 27 :: and falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular Sections. It cannot be interlocated or inter related

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections for issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different ITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 27 :: and falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular Sections. It cannot

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

EVERGREEN HARVEST AGRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,TDS WARD -1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

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

271 6900 10. 2014-15 26Q IV 030049601567915 15.05.2015 13.10.2015 151 30200 Total 299094 4. The Ld. AR submitted that fees have been levied for the period prior to 01.06.2015 which is wholly unjustified since the amendment to Sec.200A enabling such levy of fees has been introduced only w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the amendment is prospective

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, 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 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs 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. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs 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 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

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. 4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 143(2) is again impermissible in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd. (cited supra). In my view the matter has not reached the finality and, therefore, it was open to the assessee to take up the issue even in the second round of litigation. I have gone through

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 No. 1

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 No. 1

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being