MAHENDRA KUMAR DAMANI,VIRUTHUNAGAR vs. ADIT(CPC), BENGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.805 & 806/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2019-20 Mr.Mahendra Kumar Damani, V. The Asst. Director Of- 7/5, Velayutham Rastha, Sivakasi, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District-626 123. Cpc, Bangalore.

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption provisions. Therefore, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, while considering the exemption provisions. Even otherwise, Chapter III and Chapter

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY FUTURE SOFT PRIVATE LIMITED), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 V. The Acit, Capgemini Technology Corporate Circle-1(1), Services India Ltd., Block 3, ‘C’ Wing, 4Th Floor, Chennai. Capgemini Knowledge Park, Airoli Knowledge Park, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400 708. [Pan: Aaacf 0482 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 :: was not filed by the assessee along with the return of income. The said report was filed subsequently on01.03.2022. The deduction claimed u/s 10AA was disallowed in the Intimation u/s 143(1) on account of failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report in Form 56F along with the return of income. Sub-section (8) of section 10AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ASTROTECH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1150/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit M/S Astrotech Steels Private Limited बनाम/ Corporate Circle-1(1) 19, Ii Floor, Right Wing, Ghatala Towers, Chennai. Avenue Road, Nungambakkam Vs. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakca-0128-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 27-06-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

4 Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jayanthilal Patel (2001) (248 ITR 199) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Web Commerce India Pvt. Ltd (2009) (318 ITR 135) to support the submissions. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Kolkata

CLASSIC LINENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), COMPANY RANGE-I,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3341/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Classic Linens International Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Unit 13 & 14, Sdf, Ii Phase Vs. Income Tax, Osd, Company Range-I, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabcc3510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Raghunathan & Shri S. Sankar Narayanan, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Deduction Of ₹.52,61,428/- Claimed Under Section 10Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) 8 [or sub-section (3)] of section

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14.\nThe assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14.\nThe assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14.\nThe assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14. The assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

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

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14.\nThe assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

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

4) of the Act as representing\nundisclosed income of any previous year.\n14.\nThe assessee, relying upon various judicial\npronouncements, contended that for invoking Explanation 5A to\nsection 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is a condition precedent that\nincriminating material or documents must be unearthed during\nthe course of search, and that such material must form the very

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

139(4C) of the Act, means net income i.e., income after depreciation. The contention of the Ld.AR is not legally tenable. The depreciation is application of income subsequent to the determination of the total income for a trust / institution claiming the benefit of section 11 / 10(23C) of the Act. Depreciation is not an automatic deduction but application of income

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

139(4C) of the Act, means net income i.e., income after depreciation. The contention of the Ld.AR is not legally tenable. The depreciation is application of income subsequent to the determination of the total income for a trust / institution claiming the benefit of section 11 / 10(23C) of the Act. Depreciation is not an automatic deduction but application of income

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduc-tion; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) 8 [or sub- section (3)] of section

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections

K. KATHIRVEL,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in he case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant this section and in sections