SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

13(Guj), it was held that when there was no defect in maintenance of books of account on the part of the assessee there could not be any disallowance. (iii) In Asgar Jain vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 60 (Kar) , it was held that where commission was paid for sale of property and amount of commission paid had been reflected

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

13(Guj), it was held that when there was no defect in maintenance of books of account on the part of the assessee there could not be any disallowance. (iii) In Asgar Jain vs. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 60 (Kar) , it was held that where commission was paid for sale of property and amount of commission paid had been reflected

ST. FRANCIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 13(2), without considering the fact and circumstances under which the property of the Appellant was registered in the name of the Trustee, which resulted in double taxation. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in disallowing the depreciation

M/S J SIKILE FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION-III, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.83/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.J Sikile Foundation, The Dcit, Plot No.1025, Street No.44, Exemption-Iii, Tvs Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaats 1630 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

13,086 Add: Special Fee Fund 7,347 Add: Interest on balance 11,41,856 outstanding of Rs.95,15,469/-@12% 1,80,21,801 Less: Depreciation relating 2,89,419 to assets acquired during the year Assessed income 1,77,32,382 Tax thereon @30% 53,19,715 Education Cess 1,59,591 Total

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

13(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act without looking into the substance of the transaction and without ascertaining the real nature of the transaction. 4. The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer by treating the entire rental amount of Rs. l, 75,02, 909/- as income of the appellant by invoking section

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

13(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act without looking into the substance of the transaction and without ascertaining the real nature of the transaction. 4. The NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer by treating the entire rental amount of Rs. l, 75,02, 909/- as income of the appellant by invoking section

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (In I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 32 hereunder:- “32 (1) In respect of depreciation of-- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets ; 13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHENNAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

Section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act, the AO denied the exemption U/s.11 of the Act and brought the surplus of the Trust to taxation. The AO also disallowed the depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as the fees collected for the use of the CT scanner by M/s. DDPL were indeed transferred to the trust. The Tribunal also held that the CT scanner qualified for depreciation

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PARAMASIVA NAIDU MUTHURVELRAJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George Mathan

depreciation. Accordingly, Cross objections filed by the assessee on this issue stands allowed. :- 3 -: CO No.60/CHNY/2013 6. In respect of Revenue’s appeal, it was submitted by ld.D.R that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s.12AA of the Act. It was a submission that in the course of assessment , it is noticed that the assessee had given gifts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nand Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not charging adequate rent/compensation, leading to a denial of exemption and taxation of income. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO. A related issue concerned the eligibility for depreciation

MADHURIKA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Madhurika Educational & Asst. Director Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, Vs. (Exemptions)-Iv, No.11, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-34 Chennai-600010. [Pan: Aaatm8627M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059541811(1) Dated 10.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2010- 11. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

section 164(3) of the Income Tax Act and taxed sum of Rs.70,00,000/- considered as excess security deposit at Maximum Marginal Rate. The assessing officer compared the :- 9 -: transactions to a standard rental agreements of Chennai and observed that the common practice in Chennai is only to collect 10 months rent as security deposit and hence restricted

INCOME TAX OFFICER , BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 13(1)(c) on the part of assessee trust. 3. The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the AD has clearly established that the assessee's activities cannot be considered as business incidental to the attainment of the objectives of charity. 4.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee trust is entitled for depreciation

THE MUSIC ACADEMY MADRAS,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 32 provides for depreciation only in respect of the asset which is used for the purpose of business or profession. The commercial principle of computing income or the customary practice of computing income may also provide for depreciation only in respect of computing business or professional income. 13

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 147 of the Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it to be bad in law. 13. From the aforesaid understanding of law governing

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 147 of the Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it Act, and therefore quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act holding it to be bad in law. 13. From the aforesaid understanding of law governing

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

section 32 of the Act. In the circumstances, before the High Court, the Revenue did not file an appeal on the finding of fact referred to hereinabove. 8. For the afore-stated reasons, we answer question No. (b) also in favour of the assessee. 13. Further, the case law relied on by the CIT(A) at page

ADP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Corporate Circle 1(1), Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Chennai. Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. Ita Nos.2670 To 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024

section 32 of the Act. In the circumstances, before the High Court, the Revenue did not file an appeal on the finding of fact referred to hereinabove. 8. For the afore-stated reasons, we answer question No. (b) also in favour of the assessee. 13. Further, the case law relied on by the CIT(A) at page

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

depreciation of-- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being tangible assets ; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession