ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL 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. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further argued that the PCIT ought to have applied his mind before passing the order directing the AO to deny exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the entire receipts when the appellant has already paid the taxes on cash receipts u/s 115BBC of the Act and holds valid registration u/s 12AA

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.

256 at point 3 which speaks of other expenses (sub contract expenses). The ld. AR contended that in reassessment proceeding, the assessee pursuant to notice u/s.133 (6) of the Act has filed reply dated 20.03.2023 and explained the queries raised by the ld. AO. The ld. AR taken us to the paper book and referred documents relied upon in connection

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

256 (which provides for the reference to the High Court), orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. That finality or conclusiveness could only arise in respect of orders which are competent orders with jurisdiction and if the proceedings of reassessment are not validly initiated at all, the order would be avoid order as per the settled

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Charitable and Educational Trust (where the assessee's father Shri Neelraj is the Chairman) and M/s DS group - Rs.35,00,000 and Rs.30,00,000 respectively, adding up to Rs.65,00,000, which was amount transferred to Vinoth. Few more such instances are given below: Sl Who transferred Amount Source No funds to vinoth transferred 1 K MURALIDHARAN 6000000 RECEIVED

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.

1,50,000 Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District When the above four persons were investigated, the persons mentioned in row nos.2 & 3 have sworn to an affidavit that they have not received any loan from the individual and that they have no relation to the affidavits filed by the mentioned individual. I would like to inform that in the list

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.

1,50,000 Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District When the above four persons were investigated, the persons mentioned in row nos.2 & 3 have sworn to an affidavit that they have not received any loan from the individual and that they have no relation to the affidavits filed by the mentioned individual. I would like to inform that in the list

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.

1,50,000 Pudunaduvalur village, Perambalur District When the above four persons were investigated, the persons mentioned in row nos.2 & 3 have sworn to an affidavit that they have not received any loan from the individual and that they have no relation to the affidavits filed by the mentioned individual. I would like to inform that in the list

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

256(1) of the Act : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the instrument of lease dated September 10, 1970, effected the transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of s. 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and, accordingly, liable to capital gains tax ? ITA No.870/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13 & ITA Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: :-2-:

Charitable and Educational Trust (where the assessee's father Shri Neelraj is the Chairman) and M/s DS group Rs.35,00,000 and Rs.30,00,000 respectively, adding up to Rs.65,00,000, which was amount transferred to Vinoth. Few more such instances are given below: SI Who transferred Amount No funds to vinoth transferred 1 K MURALIDHARAN 6000000 Source RECEIVED

SR TRUST,MADURAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

1. For that the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2, Chennai u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, facts and ircumstances of the case. 2. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -2, Chennai is. not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, when