DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Charitable Trust, (2014) 267 CIT 305 (Del) (iii) Free Trade Union Multipurpose Project Trust vs. ITO, (2018) 95 Taxmann.Com 297 24. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative strongly supporting the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in so far as it concerned the reliefs given by him, submitted at the outset that it was necessary

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Charitable Trust, (2014) 267 CIT 305 (Del) (iii) Free Trade Union Multipurpose Project Trust vs. ITO, (2018) 95 Taxmann.Com 297 24. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative strongly supporting the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in so far as it concerned the reliefs given by him, submitted at the outset that it was necessary

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.

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 of the assesse and allow the expenditure which have been incurred for earning the income

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 36 (1) (iii) of Act 1961, and upheld by Tribunal also. 5. From the record, we find that it is not the case of Revenue Authorities that loan advanced to Sister Subsidiary Company was for non-business purpose. Tribunal has recorded a finding concurrent with CIT(A) that no direct link could be established between borrowing and lendings

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 36 (1) (iii) of Act 1961, and upheld by Tribunal also. 5. From the record, we find that it is not the case of Revenue Authorities that loan advanced to Sister Subsidiary Company was for non-business purpose. Tribunal has recorded a finding concurrent with CIT(A) that no direct link could be established between borrowing and lendings

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

138), --- --- 1,70,000 1,70,000 S/o. (Private Mr.Venkatachalam,Perambalur Company) (South) village, Perambalur District 8. Mr.K.Saravanan (145), --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 S/o. Mr.Krishnasamy, (Private Ladhapuram Company) Village,Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District 9. Mr.Mohamed Rafi1 (140) ,S/o. --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 Mr.Kurshid, Aranarai (N) (Private Village, Perambalur District Company) 10. Mr.G.Saranraj

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

138), --- --- 1,70,000 1,70,000 S/o. (Private Mr.Venkatachalam,Perambalur Company) (South) village, Perambalur District 8. Mr.K.Saravanan (145), --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 S/o. Mr.Krishnasamy, (Private Ladhapuram Company) Village,Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District 9. Mr.Mohamed Rafi1 (140) ,S/o. --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 Mr.Kurshid, Aranarai (N) (Private Village, Perambalur District Company) 10. Mr.G.Saranraj

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

138), --- --- 1,70,000 1,70,000 S/o. (Private Mr.Venkatachalam,Perambalur Company) (South) village, Perambalur District 8. Mr.K.Saravanan (145), --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 S/o. Mr.Krishnasamy, (Private Ladhapuram Company) Village,Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District 9. Mr.Mohamed Rafi1 (140) ,S/o. --- --- 1,40,000 1,40,000 Mr.Kurshid, Aranarai (N) (Private Village, Perambalur District Company) 10. Mr.G.Saranraj

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

charitable activities. These cannot be incidental activities connected to charity as well, considering the substantial sums received in each year under appeal. The section 2(15) as amended is squarely on this aspect. It is also clarified in the CBDT Circular dated 19/12/2008. Explanation in the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2010 has explained the consideration in the said

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

charitable activities. These cannot be incidental activities connected to charity as well, considering the substantial sums received in each year under appeal. The section 2(15) as amended is squarely on this aspect. It is also clarified in the CBDT Circular dated 19/12/2008. Explanation in the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2010 has explained the consideration in the said

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

charitable activities. These cannot be incidental activities connected to charity as well, considering the substantial sums received in each year under appeal. The section 2(15) as amended is squarely on this aspect. It is also clarified in the CBDT Circular dated 19/12/2008. Explanation in the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2010 has explained the consideration in the said

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

charitable activities. These cannot be incidental activities connected to charity as well, considering the substantial sums received in each year under appeal. The section 2(15) as amended is squarely on this aspect. It is also clarified in the CBDT Circular dated 19/12/2008. Explanation in the Memorandum of the Finance Bill 2010 has explained the consideration in the said

MIFTHAAHUL JANNAH EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,TIRUPUR vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1082/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: - Mifthaahul Jannah Educational & The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Charitable Trust, (Exemptions), No.1, M.K.M, Compound, 1St Street, Chennai. Noyyal Street, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 604. [Pan: Aaetm7514P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

138 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse could not notice the order of the Ld.CIT(E ), Chennai dated 26.09.2024 and which came to notice only when preparations were underway for filing of return for AY-25-26 in April-2025. The assesse submitted that

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

Section 263 of the Act:- Sl.No Name of the case Forum Citation Page No. 1 Max India Ltd. Supreme Court 295 ITR 282 3 Max India Ltd. HC-P&H 268 ITR 128 5 3 Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court 243 ITR 83 7 4 Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 12 (P.) Ltd. 5 Sunbeam Auto

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Trust reported in (1982) 138 ITR 564 (Bom), held that the amounts received by the society could not be treated as "trading receipts" and they were mere voluntary contributions. Further, the Tribunal confirmed the finding recorded by the authorities that the society was not a charitable institution. When the matter was carried on appeal to the Bombay High Court

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Trust reported in (1982) 138 ITR 564 (Bom), held that the amounts received by the society could not be treated as "trading receipts" and they were mere voluntary contributions. Further, the Tribunal confirmed the finding recorded by the authorities that the society was not a charitable institution. When the matter was carried on appeal to the Bombay High Court

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

charitable purpose of the holding company in allowing the assessee company to use the existing popular brand? No business entity will enter into an agreement for charity with another entity. It is for certain hidden benefits, the holding company has made the assessee company use the brand name and logo in all the vehicles manufactured. Had it been for charity

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

charitable purpose of the holding company in allowing the assessee company to use the existing popular brand? No business entity will enter into an agreement for charity with another entity. It is for certain hidden benefits, the holding company has made the assessee company use the brand name and logo in all the vehicles manufactured. Had it been for charity