ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

charitable Trust. However, after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the PCIT passed the order u/s 263 of the Act on the same day 31.03.2024 holding that the order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. PCIT dated

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

charitable Trust. However, after considering the submissions made by the\nassessee, the PCIT passed the order u/s 263 of the Act on the same day\n31.03.2024 holding that the order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous and prejudicial\nto the interests of the revenue and set aside the order with a direction to deny the\nclaim of exemption under

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

THE WILLINGDON CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(15) of the Act comes into operation. 34. On the contrary, Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the object of the trust is education and medical relief besides other charitable activities as described in the trust deed. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer, according to the Ld. counsel, that the assessee is predominantly involved

M.N. CHICKKANNA CHETTIAR TRUST,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee for the A

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

sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. :-3-: ITA. No.:1568/Chny/2025 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Short ‘the Act’) and filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21on 03.02.2021. The return of income was processed u/s.143

MADRAS PORT AND DOCK EDUCATIONAL TRUST HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.:937 & 938/Chny/2025 धनि््रणवर्/ Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chennai Port & Dock Educational Ito, Trust Higher Secondary School Vs. Exemptions Ward-2, (Formerly Known As Madras Port & Chennai – 600 034. Dock Educational Trust Higher Secondary School), Mdlb Housing Colony, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. [Pan:Aaaam-8192-L] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Suraj Nahar, C.A. प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

10B (8) of the Act was mandatory to be fulfilled and it cannot be said that though the declaration is mandatory, the filing of such declaration within the due date of filing of return under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act would be directory. 7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely

MADRAS PORT AND DOCK EDUCATIONAL TRUST HIGHER SEC. SCHOOL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-2,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.:937 & 938/Chny/2025 धनि््रणवर्/ Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Chennai Port & Dock Educational Ito, Trust Higher Secondary School Vs. Exemptions Ward-2, (Formerly Known As Madras Port & Chennai – 600 034. Dock Educational Trust Higher Secondary School), Mdlb Housing Colony, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. [Pan:Aaaam-8192-L] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Suraj Nahar, C.A. प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025

10B (8) of the Act was mandatory to be fulfilled and it cannot be said that though the declaration is mandatory, the filing of such declaration within the due date of filing of return under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act would be directory. 7. Reference to the aforesaid decision has no connection whatsoever remotely

DEVASAKAYAM AANGILAPPALLI PARIPALANA SABAI,MADURAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, MADURAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:933/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Devasakayam Aangilappalli Income Tax Officer, Paripalana Sabai, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No.11, Devasakayam Matriculation Madurai. Hr.Sec.School, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. [Pan:Aaatd-0964-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

Trust registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in Short ‘the Act’). The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 for the assessment year 2018-19 declaring NIL income and got their books of accounts audited along with audit report in Form 10B. However, the form 10B was omitted to be electronically filed inadvertently. The Return of income

V S K CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2024-25 V. V.S.K.Charitable & Educational Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Trust, Pudukkottai. No.7/66, Vasantha Illam,Mullainagar, Thirumayam Po, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu-622 507. [Pan: Aactv1459L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.V.Alagappan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.10.2025

10B on 30.09.2024. The assessee is exclusively engaged in educational activities and operated some VSK Charitable & Educational Trust educational institutions. Assessee while filing the return of income for the Financial Year 2023-24 (AY 2024-25), the assessee inadvertently selected the incorrect section

PALAM RURAL CENTRE,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1560/Chny/2025 & S.A.No.51Chny/2025 [Arising In Ita No.: 1560/Chny/2025] िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Palam Rural Centre, The Asst. Commissioner Of Pethampalayam, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Veerapandi S.O., Coimbatore. Tiruppur – 641 605. [Pan: Aaatp-2929-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Edser Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T.

10B is not mandatory and only a directory in nature. In the case of M/s.Annadaneshwara Charitable Trust vs. ITO Ward-3, Raichur, ITA No.514/Bang/2023 for the AY 2018-19 observed as follows. "In light of the Order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, I restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the financials