ELUMALAI RAJESHKUMAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

275’ days; appeal against the penalty levied u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act was delayed by ‘309’ days; and appeal against the penalty levied was delayed by ‘303’ days, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by passing the respective impugned orders refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals, without going into the merits/grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Aggrieved

ELUMALAI RAJESHKUMAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

275’ days; appeal against the penalty levied u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act was delayed by ‘309’ days; and appeal against the penalty levied was delayed by ‘303’ days, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by passing the respective impugned orders refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeals, without going into the merits/grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Aggrieved

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of CIT v Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. DHANDAYUTHAPANI FOUNDRY PVT. LTD.,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.698/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Dhandayuthapani Foundry Corporate Circle-2 Pvt.Ltd. Coimbatore. Door No.1/4, Vetrivel Layout Opp. To Dpf Electricals, Vilankurichi Post Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore-641 035. Pan: Aaacd 6151G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 275(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The learned CIT(Appeals), Coimbatore-1 has erred to appreciate the fact that in the instant case, the penalty order has been passed on 29.03.2017, which is within one year from the date of receipt of order from the Id. CIT(A). 5. From these and other grounds that

GOPAL SOUNDARARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Gopal Soundararaj, V. The Principal Commissioner- 255, Avinashi Road, B.R.Puram, Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Amkps 3188 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

275 days which is neither intentional nor wanton of any undue benefit, but purely beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, the delay may be condoned and appeal may be admitted in the interest of natural justice. 2.1 The Ld.DR present for the Revenue opposed petition filed by the assessee and argued that reasons given by the assessee does

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

T.M. HANDLOOMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SELLUR, MADURAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

delay of 250 days for AY 2011-12 and 275 days for AY 2012-13 are condoned. 4. Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. First

T.M HANDLOOMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SELLUR, MADURAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

delay of 250 days for AY 2011-12 and 275 days for AY 2012-13 are condoned. 4. Since issues raised in both the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to hear the appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 5. First

SRINIVASAN JAUAPRAKASAM,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 275(1)(c) of the Act, penalty order should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated. Hence, according to him, the penalty should have been levied on or before 31.07.2021, whereas the penalty order u/s.271D of the Act is dated 21.03.2022, which is clearly barred by limitation. When

SRI VAIKALATHUR AYYANAR TRUST,VALAYAPATTI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI

In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms: - (i) The clause 5(ii) of Circular No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 / 277 days. The assessees have stated the following common reason for delay in its condonation petition:- “On receipt of Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) order, we were getting ourselves prepared to file an appeal, meanwhile, there was a Circular No.6 of 2023 issued by CBDT dated 24.05.2023, wherein dates were extended to file Form No.10AB for Regular Registration u/s.12AB

VALASARAVAKKAM NAGARATHAR TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms: - (i) The clause 5(ii) of Circular No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 / 277 days. The assessees have stated the following common reason for delay in its condonation petition:- “On receipt of Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) order, we were getting ourselves prepared to file an appeal, meanwhile, there was a Circular No.6 of 2023 issued by CBDT dated 24.05.2023, wherein dates were extended to file Form No.10AB for Regular Registration u/s.12AB

KC & MSM CHARITABLE TRUST,SIVAGANGAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms: - (i) The clause 5(ii) of Circular No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 / 277 days. The assessees have stated the following common reason for delay in its condonation petition:- “On receipt of Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) order, we were getting ourselves prepared to file an appeal, meanwhile, there was a Circular No.6 of 2023 issued by CBDT dated 24.05.2023, wherein dates were extended to file Form No.10AB for Regular Registration u/s.12AB

TUARAKA TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI

In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms: - (i) The clause 5(ii) of Circular No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

275 / 277 days. The assessees have stated the following common reason for delay in its condonation petition:- “On receipt of Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) order, we were getting ourselves prepared to file an appeal, meanwhile, there was a Circular No.6 of 2023 issued by CBDT dated 24.05.2023, wherein dates were extended to file Form No.10AB for Regular Registration u/s.12AB

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

275 million Zero percent Sharon Bio-medicine Ltd 27.11.2007 USD 15 million Zero percent As against the above, SVL has charged an interest of 2 percent on the investment made in OFCD. Thus, it is apparent that the interest earned by SVL on the investment in OFCD issued by its overseas subsidiaries is at arm's length price. Since, investments

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

275 million Zero percent Sharon Bio-medicine Ltd 27.11.2007 USD 15 million Zero percent As against the above, SVL has charged an interest of 2 percent on the investment made in OFCD. Thus, it is apparent that the interest earned by SVL on the investment in OFCD issued by its overseas subsidiaries is at arm's length price. Since, investments