← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)445 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(c)

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)(c)

Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

cancellation of registration in case of any violation under Section 13. The amended Section 12AB(4) does not consider a violation of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) as specified violations. Consequently, the registration cannot be cancelled on the ground that the assessee has violated Section 13

Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

benefit to certain trustees or related parties within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act, thereby allegedly attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. On the basis of such alleged violation, the Learned PCIT has further sought to invoke clause (a) of the Explanation ... Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act. In this regard, the Learned AR rightly placed reliance on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which is a self-contained code by itself to deal with situations involving alleged benefit to specified persons. He submitted that

Hind Charitable Trust, Lucknow vs. PCIT(Central), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 26/LKW/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal,CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 132

substantial additions on the grounds of alleged unrecorded capitation fees, ITA. No. 26/LKW/2021 3 inflated In-Patient Department (IPD) receipts, and violations of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Later, these original assessment orders were relied upon to form the basis and the satisfaction recorded by the Ld PCIT ... issues before the AO during the subsequent assessment proceedings and their outcome. 4.8 The Ld. AR also submitted that only violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act will not empower the Ld. PCIT (C) to cancel the registration with retrospective effect and further, if all the receipts have

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Everwin Educational and Charitable Trust, Kolathur, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2811/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee trust had acquired properties in the names of their trustees using the trust funds which was in violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that, the subsequent action of trustees bequeathing their legal title in the land parcels ... assessee and held that the act of registration of property in the individual names of the trustees was a clear violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as a benefit accrued to the trustees because the legal ownership was with them and not the assessee trust

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Surat, Surat vs. Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

case and in law in not allowing the deduction / benefit u/s 11(1) considering the advance given to Trustee as violation of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts ... treated the activities of the assessee as business u/s 2(15) and denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act alleging interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- to trustee Shri Akash C. Mandaviya

Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat vs. CIT Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

case and in law in not allowing the deduction / benefit u/s 11(1) considering the advance given to Trustee as violation of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts ... treated the activities of the assessee as business u/s 2(15) and denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act alleging interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- to trustee Shri Akash C. Mandaviya

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 803/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

appellate proceedings before it and arbitrarily rejected its claim. He has argued that there has been no violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to debar the assessee trust from its entitlement to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Udaipur -2, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 802/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

appellate proceedings before it and arbitrarily rejected its claim. He has argued that there has been no violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to debar the assessee trust from its entitlement to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income

Navalmal Firodia Memorial Hospital Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2460/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: the learned CIT(A), the same has neither been taken note of or distinguished in any manner. Not following the binding Judicial precedent of the Jurisdictional ITAT Pune is gross impropriety in law. Ground No. 2: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

within the meaning of the statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging ... Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had rightly denied the exemption in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) & (b), as the assessee had leased its property to a concern in which trustees were substantially interested. 2. On the facts

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

within the meaning of the statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging ... Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had rightly denied the exemption in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) & (b), as the assessee had leased its property to a concern in which trustees were substantially interested. 2. On the facts

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

genuine business enterprise but rather as a medium to channel trust funds for the benefit of specified persons in contravention of provisions of Section 13(1)(c). According to him, the nature of these transactions raises concerns regarding financial propriety as they indicate a structured arrangement to divert funds

Electric Lamp and Component Manufacturers Association of India, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is allowed

ITA 4309/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalelectric Lamp & Component Cit (Exemption) Manufacturers Association Of Delhi. India, Vs. (Civic Centre Minto Road, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Delhi-110002). G-8/5 Sector-11, Opposite Sfs Apartment, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaate0234A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Dated 30.06.2025 Passed U/S 12Ab(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Rejecting The Registration Applied By The Assessee U/S 12A Of The Act For The Period From Assessment Years 2021-22 To 2025-26. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Society Was Incorporated On 29.06.1970 & Registered U/S 12A Of The Act In Terms Of Registration Certificate Issued On 30.09.1986. Thereafter, Assessment For Assessment Years 2013-14 & Electric Lamp & Component Manufacturers Association Of India Vs. Ito 2015-16 Were Completed On 29.03.2016 & 11.12.2017 Respectively, Wherein Assessee Was Allowed Exemption U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Was Granted Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Act For Assessment Year 2021-12 To 2023-24 Vide Order Dated 27.05.2021, Thereafter, Assessee Applied For Permanent Approval U/S 12A Which Was Rejected By Ld. Cit(E) Vide Order Dated 30.06.2025 & Further Cancel The Provisional Registration Granted From Assessment Year Onwards.

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 91/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3344/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3343/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार