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

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order 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 Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

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 Id. CIT(A) rightly held that section 11(4A) of the Act does not apply without

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

276) [in short 'New Noble, are against the assessee's case. 4. The assessee is noted to have responded to the above show cause notice on the same lines as in the assessment proceedings. The assessee is noted to have further explained that, the Trust was pursuing the charitable object of education and it didn't have any object

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

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

charitable activities. 3. The appellant got itself provisionally registered u/s.12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) on 06.03.2023 which pertains to the AYs 2023-24 to 2025-26. The appellant Trust also got itself provisionally approved under clause (iv) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act on the same day (06.03.2023). The provisional

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

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

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

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

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 Id.AR for assessee argued that the Id.CIT(E)'s rejection orders are without any specific finding for the rejection on the issue of genunineness of the assessee's activities as a trust