D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

capital assets acquired. Against question No. 12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated that the details of income accumulated under clause 2 of section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the prescribed format, will be submitted at the earliest and submitted the same at page 111 of the paper

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

capital assets acquired. Against question No. 12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated that the details of income accumulated under clause 2 of section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the prescribed format, will be submitted at the earliest and submitted the same at page 111 of the paper

M/S INNOVTIVE MICROFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

capital for small entrepreneurs; iv. improves the well being of children as the families have income generation; v. Provides100% of its loan ONLY for Income generation activities; vi. Targets the scheduled castes, Schedule tribes, landless small and marginal farmers; vii. Offers dignity of life by freeing people from the clutches of moneylenders. viii. Does not charge any processing fees, Documentation

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense. Le, book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise”. 10. Accordingly, the excess of income over

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

Gains of Business or Profession) and does not reduce the “total income” for determining the obligation to file the return under section 139(4C). Hence, the assessee’s contention that its income was below the taxable limit after claiming depreciation is misconceived and legally untenable. The assessee’s plea that it had incurred a net loss

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

Gains of Business or Profession) and does not reduce the “total income” for determining the obligation to file the return under section 139(4C). Hence, the assessee’s contention that its income was below the taxable limit after claiming depreciation is misconceived and legally untenable. The assessee’s plea that it had incurred a net loss

ANDHRA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.164/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Andhra Chamber Of Commerce, The Assistant Director Of No. 23, Third Cross Street, Vs. Income Tax [Exemptions] - Iii, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aaaca7746C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Vii, Chennai, Dated 12.09.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Denial Of Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act [“Act” In Short]. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Not Entitled To Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Act & Second Ground Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Depreciation.

capital assets purchased during the period relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee and considering the facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, and thus, further allowing depreciation on said asset amounts to double deduction. The AO had also made additions towards difference between the rental income offered by the assessee Trust and rental income received by the partnership firm, M/s.CFD, as income of the assessee

KALANJIAM DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL SERVICES,MADURAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed’’

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

12A of the Act by the CIT, Madurai in C.No.464/164/02-02/CIT-1 dated 30.07.2003. The assessee company filed returns of income for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively on 27.09.2012 and 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. 3. Ld.AR, Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA and as well as Ld.DR, Mr. G. Suresh, JCIT at the outset pointed out that

KALANJIAM DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL SERVICES,MADURAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed’’

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

12A of the Act by the CIT, Madurai in C.No.464/164/02-02/CIT-1 dated 30.07.2003. The assessee company filed returns of income for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively on 27.09.2012 and 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. 3. Ld.AR, Mr. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA and as well as Ld.DR, Mr. G. Suresh, JCIT at the outset pointed out that

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called