ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

260 or section 262 or section 263 or section\n264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).]\n26[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

section 45 of Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a body of individuals, purchased two pieces of land in the year 1966 measuring 14.55 acres at a price of Rs.27,260. By an instrument of lease-cum-licence dated 10th September, 1970 they granted a mining lease in favour of M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles and Potteries (Madras) Private Limited (hereinafter

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

260-A of the Income Tax Act by raising the following purported substantial questions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.7.2008, by which the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on Scientific Research was not entitled

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

260-A of the Income Tax Act by raising the following purported substantial questions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.7.2008, by which the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on Scientific Research was not entitled

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of\nimmovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for\ncertain times, expressed or implied by the lessee. In consideration of a price\npaid or premium, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of\nvalue to be rendered periodically

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to at 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 2. The next issue is regarding disallowance under Section 14A. For this Assessment Year, the amended provisions of Rule 8D, with effect from 2nd June 2016 will be applicable and the disallowance should be restricted to 1% of the average investment which

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of\nimmovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for\na certain time, expressed or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price\npaid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of\nvalue to be rendered

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

260 Taxman 273 (Bom.) 4.3) The Department respectfully submits that it is a fact that the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.DRP against the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4.4) The Department prays to draw attention of the Hon'ble Bench to the provisions contained in section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. The usage

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2663/Chny/2025 धििाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2021-22

Transfer of power electricity Consumption by the TPP to cement unit) (In Units) (in INR.) (In INR) Sale of power generated at 19,22,67,600 7.23 1,39,00,94,748 Sankarnagar, Tamil Nadu Sale of power generated at 18,57,46,260 6.25 1,16,09,14,125 Vishnupuram, Telangana Sale of power generated

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

260 India in its books for FY 2017- 18 9.3. ROI of Keller India for AY 2018-19 along with statement of 262 computation of Total Income IV. Documents relied upon in connection with rectification proceedings 10 Submission dated August 02, 2023, filed with the Ld. AO in 340 response to the notice issued under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P.P. CONSTRUCTIONS, KARUR

section 115BBE\nincreasing the rate of tax to 60% is not retrospectively\napplicable. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E\nMicrofinance Limited v ACIT 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8416 (Pages\n248 – 259 of Case Law Book 1) has categorically held that the\nrate of 60 percent is to be imposed only for the transactions\nfrom 01.04.2017. The above order

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)

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. 41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule

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)

price goes up in order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. 41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read with rule

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

260 ITR 714 and also decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd reported in [2020] 422 ITR 164 (Guj). 5.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, Explanation (2) to section 37 of the Act, inserted

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,,KUMBAKONAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1),, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1120 & 1121/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Administrative Office V. Tax, “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 672/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Administrative Office V. Income-Tax, “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Trichy. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1418 & 1419/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -1, 24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam. Kumbakonam- 612 001. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 636/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, V. Administrative Office “Narayana” Circle -2(1), 24-B, Gandhi Nagar

260 ITR 714 and also decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd reported in [2020] 422 ITR 164 (Guj). 5.2 The ld. DR, on the other hand supporting the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, Explanation (2) to section 37 of the Act, inserted