Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Cognizant Technology on 20 October, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated : 20.10.2021
Coram :
The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant in all Appeals
Vs
M/s.Cognizant Technology,
Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.,
30, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
PAN - AAACD3312M ...Respondent in all Appeals
Common Prayer
APPEALs under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against
the order dated 01.07.2014 made in I.T.A.No.460/Mds/2010,
I.T.A.No.751/Mds/2010 and I.T.A.No.864/Mds/2010, on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench.
For Appellant in all Appeals : Ms.K.G.Usha Ram
For Respondent in all Appeals : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi for Mr.N.V.Balaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT
Delivered By Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
When the appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for both sides submitted that the substantial questions of law
involved in these Appeals have already been dealt with by the Honourable
Supreme Court as well as this Court in favour of the assessee and therefore,
the present Appeals may be disposed of on the same lines.
2. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
filed by the Revenue, was admitted on the following substantial questions of
law :
1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the foreign currency expenditure has to be excluded from both
export turnover and total turnover for the purpose of Section 10B of the Act?
2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the expenditure incurred on telecommunication charges relatable
to delivery of software outside India would also not form part of the total turnover for
the purpose of Section 10B of the Act?
3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the interest under Section 234D is leviable from assessment year
2004-2005 onwards, when the assessee's regular assessment was completed only on
17.03.2005?
4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
right in determining the disallowance under Section 14A of exempt income @ 2%
without assigning any reason?
and
5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in holding that the current losses of the eligible unit must be set off against
profits of the other eligible units before allowing the deduction under Section
10A/10B?
2.1 The substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2) referred above are
substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2) respectively in all these appeals, in
respect of which, already the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central III Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd.,
reported in (2018) 404 ITR 719, decided the issue in favour of the assessee.
2.2 The substantial question of law No.3) referred above is the
substantial question of law No.3) in T.C.A.No.1234 of 2015, and the same
has already been decided by this Court in favour of the assessee in
T.C.A.No.733/2013, dated 24.08.2021, in re (The Commissioner of
Income Tax, Chennai Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,)
2.3 The substantial question of law No.4) referred above is the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
substantial question of law No.3 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015 and the very
same substantial question of law is decided in favour of the assessee by this
Court, in CIT Vs. TAC Investments Finance (Madras) Ltd., reported in
(2016) 74 Taxmann.Com 38 (Madras).
2.4 The substantial question of law No.5) referred above is the
substantial question of law No.4 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015 is concerned,
and the same is decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of this
Court, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Yokogowa
reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.Com 41 (SC).
3. As the substantial questions of law involved herein are no longer
res integra, and the same have already been dealt with in favour of the
assessee by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court, in the
decisions referred to above, these Tax Case Appeals are liable to be
dismissed on the same lines.
4. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
(P.S.N.J.) (K.R.J.)
20.10.2021
Internet : Yes
sd
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench.
Pushpa Sathyanarayana,J.,
&
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,
sd
Tax Case (Appeal)
Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015
20.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
