INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: Both these appeals in ITA No.2096/Chny/2025 and 2095/Chny/2025 are filed by the Revenue are directed against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2024 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2017-18 against the order of the Assessing officer (NFAC

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM: Both these appeals in ITA No.2096/Chny/2025 and 2095/Chny/2025 are filed by the Revenue are directed against orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after “ld.CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2024 for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2017-18 against the order of the Assessing officer (NFAC

SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1(1), TRICHY

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

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

d) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.76,17,761/- claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole controversy in this case is whether the assessee

IRULA SNAKE CATCHERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. (Ita No.1790/Chny/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2020-21 Irula Snake Catchers Industrial Co- V. Income Tax Officer, Operative Society Ltd, Non-Coporate Ward 22(1), Mahabalipuram Road, Tambaram Vadanemmli Village, Perur Post, Chennai-603 104 [Pan:Aaaai 7894 M] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

d), without appreciating the fact that, the claim of the assessee as a cottage industry and the entire Income was claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(ii). Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that, the assessee is a cottage industry and the entire income is attributable to business

SOUTHERN RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. DCIT, CRICLE-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

d) of the Act. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs.76,17,761/- claimed by the assessee u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole controversy in this case is whether the assessee

M/S APEX TRANSWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.932/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.Apex Transworld Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 38, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadca 7034 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.K. Ramesh Babu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

80P(2)(d) on interest income on investment from a Co-operative Bank and on reserve fund interest received from above bank. These fresh claims made by assessee were rejected by Assessing Officer - Hon'ble High Court of Madras held - Since claim made by assessee with regard to interest income on investment was not made in original return and only

POTHERI VILLAGE WEANING FOOD MANUFACTURING WOMENS DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL COOP,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, NCW 22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1055/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Potheri Village Weaning Food Income Tax Officer, Manufacturing Womens V. Non-Corporate Ward – 22(1), Development Industrial Coop, Tambaram. 12, Amman Koil Street, Potheri Katankolathur Post, Kanchipuram – 603 203. [Pan: Aaaap-9745-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act by a ‘cottage industry’ have been specified in para 3 as detailed below: “(a) a cottage industry is one which is carried on a small scale with a small amount of capital and a small number of workers and has a turnover which is correspondingly limited; (b) it should not be required

MADURA COATS EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SERVICE CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Maduracoats Employees & The Income Tax Officer, Public Service Co-Op Ward 4, Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Tirunelveli Ambasamudram, Agasthiyarpatti S.O, Agasthiyarpatti, Tirunelveli – 627428. Pan: Aaiam 5076B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short ‘the CIT(A), NFAC / Delhi dated 15.07.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2016-17, confirming the assessment under section

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

gain by not filing the appeals. The action of the assessee can’t be termed to action of the assessee can’t be termed to be deliberate and therefore, we be deliberate and therefore, we condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

gain by not filing the appeals. The action of the assessee can’t be termed to action of the assessee can’t be termed to be deliberate and therefore, we be deliberate and therefore, we condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both the appeals and proceed to condone the delay of 262 days in filing of both