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

ACIT CIRC LE 1, TRICHY vs. M/S DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596 & 1295/Chny/2018 & C.O.Nos.55 & 57/Chny/2019 [In Ita Nos.596 & 1295/Chny/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3) Further most of the rulings referred by the assessee based on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products(322 ITR 158). The facts of the case are different from this case. In the referred case the assessee claimed deduction u/s.36

ACIT CIRC LE 1, TRICHY vs. M/S DALMIA CEMENTS (BHARAT) LTD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596 & 1295/Chny/2018 & C.O.Nos.55 & 57/Chny/2019 [In Ita Nos.596 & 1295/Chny/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3) Further most of the rulings referred by the assessee based on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products(322 ITR 158). The facts of the case are different from this case. In the referred case the assessee claimed deduction u/s.36

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

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

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on this sum of ". 102 lacs, levied at 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. While the assessee insists that her action in filing the ‘revised return’ was done only to purchase peace with the IT Department and avoided protracted litigation

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

SHREE KRISHNA PLASTIC PROCESS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2509/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 271 (1) (c) (iii) there must be a positive income resulting in tax. The Penalty Imposed was in addition to any tax payable. If there was no tax, no penalty could be levied. 1.4 The appellant filed return declaring loss of Rs.1,86,62,094/- and after assessment by the A.O the loss was reduced

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

JOSEPH PRINCE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2739, 2740 & 2741/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008--2009)

195 Disallowance of depreciation 3,34,647 Unexlained cash credit 14,793 4,15,635 Assessed Income 46,04,060 Less Deduction under Chapter VIA 1,00,000 ------------ Taxable income 45,04,060 ----------- Sheeba Prince ITA No.2742/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2005-06 Total income (as returned) 93,49,490 Add Income from other sources (claimed

PINCESON JOSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2739, 2740 & 2741/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008--2009)

195 Disallowance of depreciation 3,34,647 Unexlained cash credit 14,793 4,15,635 Assessed Income 46,04,060 Less Deduction under Chapter VIA 1,00,000 ------------ Taxable income 45,04,060 ----------- Sheeba Prince ITA No.2742/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2005-06 Total income (as returned) 93,49,490 Add Income from other sources (claimed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHNSON LIFTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

195(2) to the concerned Assessing Officer, in the absence of which the assesse ought to have deducted tax at applicable rates. 8. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of bad debts of Rs.3,02,05,099/- claimed u/s 36(1)(vii), 9. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amounts written off pertain

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the additions made to the tune of Rs.45,91,25,185/- by way of enhancement to the income returned. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are therefore, initiated on both counts viz., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before