SRI KUMAWAT SAMAJ TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Kumawat Samaj Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of No. 14, 1St Floor, Kumarappa Street, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sevenwells, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aavts7941K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Naresh Singh Rathore, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

condonation of delay under section 1119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 19 10. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

CHARSUR ARTS FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.:1753/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Charsur Arts Foundation, The Commissioner Of No. 72, M.C.P. Ramasamy Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aabtc-1154-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hithesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Dated 16.05.2025 Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Solitary Issue Argued On Merits Is With Regard To Maintainability Of Appeal Filed Against The Order Passed Under Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act.

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 6. We note that the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable before the Tribunal for the reason that an assessee is not vested with any right to assail an order passed under section 119(2)(b) of the Act by preferring an appeal before the Income

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. R.ELANGOVAN, KARAMADAI

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1199/Chny/2017 & C.O.No.75/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1199/Chny/2017) "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Shri. R. Elangovan, Of Income Tax, 821/2, Kallipalayam, Corporate Circle 1, Chikkarampalayam Post, Coimbatore Karamadai 641 104. [Pan Aadpe 1841Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 2. Cross Objection of the assessee assails levy of penalty for the impugned assessment year for a reason that notice issued for levy of penalty was ambiguous and was not valid due to this infirmity. Since assessee had questioned the very validity of initiation of the penalty, this is considered first. 3. Ld. Counsel

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 10. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

S & P FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No. 382 & 2085/Chny/13 2. Both the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are delayed by 10 days and 39 days respectively, for which, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition in support of an affidavit for condonation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No. 382 & 2085/Chny/13 2. Both the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are delayed by 10 days and 39 days respectively, for which, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition in support of an affidavit for condonation

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 10. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

condone the delay of 5 days in filing\nthese appeals and proceed to dispose off the same on merits.\n3.\nCommon issues are raised in these appeals, hence they\nwere heard together and are being disposed off by this\nconsolidated order. We shall first adjudicate the appeal preferred\nby the Revenue in ITA No.1650/Chny/2025 pertaining to the\nA.Y.2015-16, which arises