ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD -3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. TAM WORLD TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1793/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Tam World Travel Private Limited, Corporate Ward 3(1), Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, 27/13, Chennai. Venkataraman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaect5864C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee-Respondent Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

68,166/- against the disallowance of ₹.3,10,72,663/- made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a company and filed revised return of income declaring NIL income. On an examination of the record, the Assessing officer asked the assessee to provide details

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

68. The addition of cash deposit as income of the assessee is hereby deleted. In the facts of the case in Form35 (column 11 of Form35) the assessee has stated that AO has vide an order u/s 154 has given reduction of Rs. Being GP on admitted sales. While giving effect to this order the AO will take into account

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

166,41,22,057/- Aggrieved by the above Assessment order u/s.143(3) rw.s.147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, the assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) dt.28.04.2022. The Id.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act on 20.03.2025 by sustaining the below mentioned additions to total Income: 1) Total Credits in Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No 737010042783 2) Loans

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

166,41,22,057/- Aggrieved by the above Assessment order u/s.143(3) rw.s.147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, the assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) dt.28.04.2022. The Id.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act on 20.03.2025 by sustaining the below mentioned additions to total Income: 1) Total Credits in Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No 737010042783 2) Loans

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

166,41,22,057/- Aggrieved by the above Assessment order u/s.143(3) rw.s.147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) dt.28.04.2022. The ld.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act on 20.03.2025 by sustaining the below mentioned additions to total Income: 1) Total Credits in Kotak Mahindra Bank Rs.8

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

166,41,22,057/- Aggrieved by the above Assessment order u/s.143(3) rw.s.147 of the Act dated 31.03.2022, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) dt.28.04.2022. The ld.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act on 20.03.2025 by sustaining the below mentioned additions to total Income: 1) Total Credits in Kotak Mahindra Bank Rs.8

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE 1(1) (ERSTWHILE JURISDICTION), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), TDS CIRCLE 1(1) (ERSTWHILE JURISDICTION), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the Stay Applications filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2201 & 2202, 2203 & 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211 & 2212, 2213 & 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2015- 16, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & S.A. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. Nos.2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2209, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214 & 2215/Chny/2024] Cognizant Technology Solutions India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 5/535, Okkiyam Income Tax, Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Circle 1(1), Road, Chennai 600 097. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacd3312M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Murugesan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2024 & 03.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Eleven Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate, But, Identical Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years Mentioned Hereinabove. Out Of The Above Appeals, The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2201/Chny/2024, 2203/Chny/2024, 2205/Chny/2024, 2209/Chny/2024

68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 & 75/Chny/24 amount i.e. actual invoice value gets accounted ultimately over two years. Further, he drew our attention to the said table and submits that the assessee made provision for expenses as on 31.03.2015 to an extent of ₹.27,87,89,271/- and disallowed 30% thereon of ₹.8,36,36,781/- by the assessee