IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 08.08.2025 DELIVERED ON : 25.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN TCA Nos.277 to 280 of 2016 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited

38, Whites Road, 3^rd Floor, Chennai – 600 014 Now at No.165/110 Menon Eternity Building

6^th Floor, St. Mary's Road Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

Appellant(s)

in both appeals Vs Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai

1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Ring Road Anna Nagar Western Extension Chennai – 600 101.

Respondent(s) in both appeals P RAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 30.9.2015 in ITA.Nos.209/Mds/2007; in CO No.47/Mds/2007 in ITA No.591/Mds/2007; in ITA No.591/Mds/

2007, in ITA No.2536/Mds/2007, respectively.

For Appellant(s): Mr.N.V.Balaji For Respondent(s): Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT THE CHIEF JUSTICE Impugning the common order dated 30.9.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT], the assessee has filed these appeals pertaining to assessment years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, which have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

T.C.A.No.277 of 2016:

"(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the losses of the software technology park units of the appellant cannot be set off against the income from other units in arriving at total income?

(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA, for International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) is to be disallowed under Section

40(a)(i) of the Act?

(iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA, for International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) is 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America?

(iv) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA towards IPLC should be subject to deduction of tax at source considering the non discrimination Article of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America? and (v) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in not adjudicating the ground of appeal raised by the appellant with respect to claim of tax holiday deduction under Section 10A/10B on miscellaneous income?"

(i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA, for International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) is to be disallowed under Section

40(a)(i) of the Act?

(ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA, for International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) is 'royalty' under Section 9 of the Act read with the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America? And (iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the amounts paid by the appellant to M/s.Sprint USA towards IPLC should be subject to deduction of tax at source considering the non discrimination Article of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and United States of America?

T.C.A.No.279 of 2016 Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant is liable for interest under Section 234D of the Act?

Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate T