Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.cognizant Technology,Solutions India Pvt. Ltd

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 20.10.2021 Coram : The Honourable Mrs.Justice Pushpa SathyanarayanaandThe 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 - ...Respondent in all Appeals Common Prayer : APPEALs under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order dated 09.06.2014 made inI.T.A.No.460/Mds/2010,I.T.A.No.751/Mds/2010andI.T.A.No.864/Mds/2010, on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, preferred against the order dated29.01.2010 and 12.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of IncomeTax(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai made in ITANo.23/2007-08/LTU(A) and ITA No.35/2009-10/LTU(A), preferredagainst the order dated 05.09.2007 and 04.12.2009, passed by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit,Chennai made in GI/PA.No.AAAC331M. For Respondent in all Appeals : Ms.N.V.Lakshmi for Mr.N.V.Balaji COMMON JUDGMENT Delivered By Krishnan Ramasamy,J., When the appeals are taken up for hearing, the learnedcounsel appearing for both sides submitted that the substantialquestions of law involved in these Appeals have already beendealt with by the Honourable Supreme Court as well as thisCourt in favour of the assessee and therefore, the presentAppeals may be disposed of on the same lines. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 filed by the Revenue, was admitted on the followingsubstantial questions of law : 1) Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe foreign currency expenditure has to be excludedfrom both export turnover and total turnover for thepurpose of Section 10B of the Act? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding that theexpenditure incurred on telecommunication chargesrelatable to delivery of software outside India wouldalso not form part of the total turnover for thepurpose of Section 10B of the Act? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theinterest under Section 234D is leviable fromassessment year 2004-2005 onwards, when the assessee'sregular assessment was completed only on 17.03.2005? 4) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in determining thedisallowance under Section 14A of exempt income @ 2%without assigning any reason? and 5) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that thecurrent losses of the eligible unit must be set offagainst profits of the other eligible units beforeallowing the deduction under Section 10A/10B? 2.1 The substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2) referredabove are substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2)respectively in all these appeals, in respect of which, alreadythe Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner ofIncome 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 aboveis the substantial question of law No.3) in T.C.A.No.1234 of2015, and the same has already been decided by this Court infavour 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. UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd.,) 2.3 The substantial question of law No.4) referred aboveis the substantial question of law No.3 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015and the very same substantial question of law is decided infavour of the assessee by this Court, in CIT Vs. TAC InvestmentsFinance (Madras) Ltd., reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.Com 38(Madras). 2.2 The substantial question of law No.3) referred aboveis the substantial question of law No.3) in T.C.A.No.1234 of2015, and the same has already been decided by this Court infavour 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. UnitedIndia Insurance Co. Ltd.,) 2.3 The substantial question of law No.4) referred aboveis the substantial question of law No.3 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015and the very same substantial question of law is decided infavour of the assessee by this Court, in CIT Vs. TAC InvestmentsFinance (Madras) Ltd., reported in (2016) 74 Taxmann.Com 38(Madras). 2.4 The substantial question of law No.5) referred aboveis the substantial question of law No.4 in T.C.A.No.1235 of 2015is concerned, and the same is decided in favour of the assesseeby the decision of this Court, in the case of Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. M/s. Yokogowa reported in (2017) 77 Taxmann.Com41 (SC). 3. As the substantial questions of law involved herein areno longer res integra, and the same have already been dealtwith in favour of the assessee by the Honourable Supreme Courtas well as this Court, in the decisions referred to above, theseTax Case Appeals are liable to be dismissed on the same lines. 4. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CS-CCC) //True copy// sd Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai. +1cc to Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Advocate SR.No.53626+3ccs to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate SR.No.53828 SSV(CO)GMY(13/12/2021) Tax Case (Appeal)Nos.1234 to 1236 of 2015