TAMIL FILM PRODUCERS COUNCIL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1,, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) had complied with the earlier order in spirit. The AO's order lacked deliberations on the Tribunal's directions, and the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was cryptic.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The core issue revolved around the Tribunal's prior order directing the AO to reconsider the matter regarding Sections 11, 12, and 13 of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) have complied with the previous Tribunal's order to reconsider the issue afresh concerning Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter in short ‘the Ld.CIT(A)’), dated 12.11.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short ‘AY’) 2009-10.
Heard both parties. The main controversy is that the Tribunal in the case of assessee has passed order in dated 03.07.2015 and directed the Assessing officer (‘AO’ in short) to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the provision of section 11, 12 and 13 of (AY 2009-10) Tamil Film Producers Council the Act. However, we notice that neither AO or CIT(A) has in true spirit complied the order of the Tribunal. The AO in his order dated 29.12.2016 u/s143(3) r.w.s 254 has discussed about the revenue appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 03.07.2015, however, we have not found any deliberations of the AO with regard to the direction of the Tribunal qua to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the provision of section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. Further, we also find that the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) is cryptic, ambiguous and does not pass a parameter of a speaking order. Hence, we again set aside the impugned order and remand back the appeal to the file of the AO to follow the direction of the Tribunal in dated 03.07.2015 in letter & spirit and pass a speaking order after affording proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment proceedings as per law.
In result, the appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 23rd day of July, 2025, in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026