← All Phrases

“Assistant Director”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(9B) / Section 117731 judgments

The decision most relied on for Assistant Director is Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income (20 SOT 353), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Assistant Director

Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income
20 SOT 353 · 2008 · ITAT
50
citing judgments

An educational institution that collects money over and above the prescribed rates, essentially acting as a vendor of education for profit, may not be considered a charitable institution under Section 2(15) and may be viewed as operating with a profit motive.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
304 ITR 264 · 2008 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 cannot be initiated if the original assessment proceedings, initiated based on a filed return, are still pending. This includes situations where the time for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) has not expired.

292 ITR 416(SC) Galileo Nederland BV v. Assistant Director of Income-tax, Circle-i(2), (Intl. Tax), New Delhi
367 ITR 319 · 2014 · High Court
28
citing judgments

The principle of consistency requires that the Assessing Officer or First Appellate Authority must follow decisions made in earlier years, unless there are good and sufficient reasons to deviate. An assessee's status should not be altered arbitrarily without assigning reasons or distinguishing facts.

STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER
302 ITR 275 · 2008 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Information from the Enforcement Directorate indicating inflated purchases can serve as a valid basis for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, initiating reassessment proceedings.

Trib.) (v) Flying Fabrication v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
133 Taxmann.com 84 · 2021 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act made by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature, meaning payments made before the amendment are not affected by its retrospective application.

Jabalpur); Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar v. Assistant Director of Income Tax
192 ITD 562 · 2022 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

Cases cited by this decision often involve assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20.

Murasoli Trust v. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions IV), Chennai
65 Taxmann.com 186 · 2016 · Reported
13
citing judgments

A trust engaged in activities that constitute trade, commerce, or business is not entitled to claim its object as charitable if those activities fall foul of the proviso to section 2(15). Running a petrol outlet may not be considered a business incidental to the main object of a trust.

Ashapura Minichem Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax
40 SOT 220 · 2010 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

Income of a non-resident is deemed to accrue or arise in India if it falls under clauses (v), (vi), or (vii) of section 9(1), irrespective of whether the non-resident has a place of business or connection in India or has rendered services in India, due to the retrospective amendment of Section 9 by the Finance Act, 2010.

Judgments citing Assistant Director

Ammapalayam Basuvaptti Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

ITA 2704/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms.A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 271B

assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society and the audit of the Society was conducted during the month of November, 2018 by the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Department of Cooperative Audit, Tamil Nadu after getting the approval from the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Erode, the assessee society

Ammapalayam Basuvaptti Primary Agricultural Co Op Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

ITA 2703/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms.A. Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 271B

assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society and the audit of the Society was conducted during the month of November, 2018 by the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Department of Cooperative Audit, Tamil Nadu after getting the approval from the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Erode, the assessee society

M/S. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Excemption, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 164/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

view taken by the Tribunal on this point.” ITAT, Hyderabad _bench_in_ Institute for Development_and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT), Hyderabad Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax (E)-1, Hyderabad (2015) 63 taxmann.com 297 (Hyderabad - Trib.): “22. Similarly, the provisions for payment of tax should be allowed as application

Bajaj Dharamarth Trust, Hisar vs. ADIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3436/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3436/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director Of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, Pan: Aaaab6657M Cpc, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Piyushtripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3436/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, PAN: AAAAB6657M CPC, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue

Bajaj Dharmarth Trust, Hisar vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3435/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3436/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director Of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, Pan: Aaaab6657M Cpc, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue By Sh. Piyushtripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3436/DEL/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) Bajaj Dharmarth Trust Vs Assessing Officer Hospital Road Barwala, Assistant Director of Income Hisar-125121 (Haryana) Tax, PAN: AAAAB6657M CPC, Bangalore Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. V. K. Sabharwal, Adv& Sh. Rajiv Kumar, Adv Revenue

Vindhya Trust, Delhi vs. Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(Appeals)] erred in confirming tax at flat rate of 30% levied by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"). It is submitted that the adjustment has been made without affording the appellant any opportunity of being heard

Vindhya Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(Appeals)] erred in confirming tax at flat rate of 30% levied by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the AO"). It is submitted that the adjustment has been made without affording the appellant any opportunity of being heard

Gold Spice Impex, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(2), Delhi

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

ITA 2244/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S. Gold Spice Impex, Vs. Ito, Ward 47 (2), 1879, Kucha Chelian, Khari Boali, Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (Pan : Aapfg0688P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.1,15,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 & Taxing The Same U/S 115Bbe & That Too By Recording Incorrect Facts & Findings & Without Following The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 234BSection 68

Section 34 – w.e.f. 1.10.1975).][If the Director General or Director or] [ Substituted by Act 26 of 1988, Section 33 for "If the Assistant Director of Inspection" (w.e.f. 1.6.1988).][Joint Director] [ Substituted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 3, for" Deputy Director" , " Assistant Commissioner" and " Assistant w.e.f 1.10.1998).][or Assistant Director ... Deputy Director] [Substituted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 3 for " Deputy Director" , " Assistant Commissioner" and" Assistant Director" (w.e.f. 1.10.1998] [or the authorised officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 132 before he takes action under clauses (i) to (v) of that sub-section] [ Substituted

National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 399/RAN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) National University Of Study & Assistant Director Of Research In Law, Ranchi, Income Tax, Vs. Nusrl Campus, Pithoria Road, P.O- C.P.C., Bangaluru. Burku At Nagri, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaajn 0847 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143

RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) National University of Study and Assistant Director of Research in Law, Ranchi, Income Tax, Vs. NUSRL Campus, Pithoria Road, P.O- C.P.C., Bangaluru. Burku at Nagri, Jharkhand. PAN No. AAAJN

Nippon Koei Co. Ltd., Begumpet vs. ADIT (International Taxation)- 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 670/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.670/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Nippon Koei Co. Ltd Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Taxation)-2, Pan:Aabcn8434F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gsv Prasad, Anand Swaroop & S K Mohanty, Cas राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri GSV Prasad, Anand Swaroop and S K Mohanty, CAsFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 201Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44D

Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Nippon Koei Co. Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (Int. Taxation)-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”), u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act (“ the Act”),dated 31/10/2023

Harmony Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore v. Envisions VINEETSARAN AND MRS. S. SUJATНА, (2015) 58 taxman.com 184. d. M. P. Gandhi Trust vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, 1(1) (2006) 8 SOT 808(MUM) ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions (Bangalore) vs. Gokule Education Foundation (2017) 7 taxman.com

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 178/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

figures reported. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: Assessment Year 2018-19 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances ... under section 250 upholding the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, Assessment Year 2019-20 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle- 4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 177/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

figures reported. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: Assessment Year 2018-19 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances ... under section 250 upholding the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, Assessment Year 2019-20 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances

Muniswamy Reddy Venkatesha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 176/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

figures reported. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: Assessment Year 2018-19 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances ... under section 250 upholding the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, Assessment Year 2019-20 1. The impugned intimation passed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru (learned AO), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances

Deloitte Consulting India Projects Lp, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1386/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1386/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S. Deloitte Consulting Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income India Projects Lp, Tax (Int.Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcd1272B (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U Mini Chandran, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. U Mini Chandran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by M/s. Deloitte Consulting India Projects LP (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Assistant Director of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”) dated 22.10.2024 for the A.Y. 2021-22. Page

Rural Development Foundation, Anand vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

that belated returns are also valid for the purpose of claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. Similarly, in Rajasthan Nursing Council vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax [2025] 175 taxmann.com 358 (Jaipur - Trib.) [07-05-2025], ITAT held that a trust registered under section 12AA

Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1425/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

judicial authorities while dealing with similar cases of delayed deposits due to intervening holidays. In G.D. Foods and Manufacturing (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi - Trib.) / (2023) 202 ITD 116 (Delhi - Trib.)], the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held that where

Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Race Course, Vadodara vs. Unimed Technologies Limited, Halol Panchmahal

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed for AY 2017-18

ITA 1423/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

judicial authorities while dealing with similar cases of delayed deposits due to intervening holidays. In G.D. Foods and Manufacturing (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Director of Income-tax [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi - Trib.) / (2023) 202 ITD 116 (Delhi - Trib.)], the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held that where

Chithalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1788/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

operative Societies Act, 1983 for the return of income for AY 2021-22 on 07.12.2023 after the final audit report copy approved by the Assistant Director of Co-op. Audit declaring income as NIL after claiming deduction under section

Chinthalpadi Pacs Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1787 & 1788/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chinthalpadi Primary Agri. Co-Operative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society Limited, Chinthalpadi Village, Ward 1, Chinthalpadi Post, Pappireddipatty Tk, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri 635 302. [Pan:Aaaac9429J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 24.03.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Ahmedabad For The Assessment Years 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

operative Societies Act, 1983 for the return of income for AY 2021-22 on 07.12.2023 after the final audit report copy approved by the Assistant Director of Co-op. Audit declaring income as NIL after claiming deduction under section