VYASA VIDYA MANDIRAM,COIMBATORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTIIONS,, CHENNAI

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

276)\nreaffirmed the narrow and restricted meaning of the term\n'Education' to a scholastic structured learning as confined\n(sic.-construed) in Articles 21A, 29-30 and 45-46 of the\nConstitution of India.\nB. The Trust is collecting fees for conducting unorganized\ncourses which is its major source of income and booking the\nsame in its accounts

VYASA VIDYA MANDIRAM,COIMBATORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

276)\nreaffirmed the narrow and restricted meaning of the term\n'Education' to a scholastic structured learning as confined\n(sic.-construed) in Articles 21A, 29-30 and 45-46 of the\nConstitution of India.\nB. The Trust is collecting fees for conducting unorganized\ncourses which is its major source of income and booking the\nsame in its accounts

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

276 (SC) held that the exemption requires that trust to be solely engaged in education with business income being incidental. She argued vehemently that the assessee’s claim of concessional rate lacks evidence and it is irrelevant to the commercial character, further, the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that section 11(4A) of the Act does not apply without

GANDHINAGAR AROGYA NILAYAM CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.2705/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: - Gandhinagar Arogya Nilayam Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), New No.56, Old No.62, Chennai. 4Th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600 020. [Pan:Aaatg2771L] (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V.Swaminathan, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025

section 11(4) is not applicable in the assessee's case. According to the ld.DR, neither the property of the assessee trust was SETTLED at the time of foundation of the trust nor was the property ACQUIRED with help of the fund originally settled upon the trust. Further, in this case, the assessee trust had received more than

M/S.AGASTYA GURUKULAM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

276.\n4. TMA Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka [2002] 8 SCC 481.\n5. Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation V. CCIT [2020] taxmann.com\n128.\n7. Before us, the Id.AR for assessee argued that the Id.CIT(E)'s rejection\norders are without any specific finding for the rejection on the issue of\ngenunineness of the assessee's activities as a trust

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

Charitable Trust 1,12,53,64,017 5. Jayapriya Food products private limited 4,59,82,869 6. Jayapriya property developers private limited 2,43,54,370 7. Jayapriya Trading Company 8,26,56,356 8. Land Advance-APJ Abdulkalam Educational Trust 4,063,74,000 Total 1,61,89,97,220/- 10.4 It is observed that the assessee

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

Charitable Trust 1,12,53,64,017 5. Jayapriya Food products private limited 4,59,82,869 6. Jayapriya property developers private limited 2,43,54,370 7. Jayapriya Trading Company 8,26,56,356 8. Land Advance-APJ Abdulkalam Educational Trust 4,063,74,000 Total 1,61,89,97,220/- 10.4 It is observed that the assessee

M/. AGASTYA GURUKULAM PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

276. 4. TMA Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka [2002] 8 SCC 481. 5. Raja Sir Annamalai Chettiar Foundation V. CCIT [2020] taxmann.com 128. 7. Before us, the ld.AR for assessee argued that the ld.CIT(E)’s rejection orders are without any specific finding for the rejection on the issue of genuineness of the assessee’s activities as a trust