ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MANAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

disallowed, the same should be reduced from application and not brought to tax. 10. The appellant craves the leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to adduce additional grounds in support its contentions before and during the course of hearing of this appeal. ITA No.125/CHNY/2019 & CO No.18/CHNY/2019: 4. The brief facts of the case extracted from assessment year

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE vs. MAHENDRA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MANAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 125 & 126/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co Nos.: 18 & 19/Chny/2019 (In Ita Nos.125 & 126/Chny/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), M/S. Mahendra Educational May Flower Mid City Building, V. Trust, 1510, Trichy Road, Kalipatti Post, Attayampatti Via, Coimbatore – 641 018. Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 501. Pan: Aaaam2491C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2021

disallowed, the same should be reduced from application and not brought to tax. 10. The appellant craves the leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to adduce additional grounds in support its contentions before and during the course of hearing of this appeal. ITA No.125/CHNY/2019 & CO No.18/CHNY/2019: 4. The brief facts of the case extracted from assessment year

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

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

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

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

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

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

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

disallowance that is restricted to monetary value of the benefit to the prohibited person(s), or it will lead to complete denial of the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. 10. In the appellant's case it is noticed that it is running educational institutions. During the AY s under consideration, it was noticed

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10%. In any case, according to him, maximum marginal rate of tax, if applied could only be on such amount which came within purview of violation of Section 13(1) ( c) of ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 40 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 the Act and there cannot be a blanket denial of exemption under Section

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10%. In any case, according to him, maximum marginal rate of tax, if applied could only be on such amount which came within purview of violation of Section 13(1) ( c) of ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 40 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 the Act and there cannot be a blanket denial of exemption under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10%. In any case, according to him, maximum marginal rate of tax, if applied could only be on such amount which came within purview of violation of Section 13(1) ( c) of ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 40 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 the Act and there cannot be a blanket denial of exemption under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

10%. In any case, according to him, maximum marginal rate of tax, if applied could only be on such amount which came within purview of violation of Section 13(1) ( c) of ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 40 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 the Act and there cannot be a blanket denial of exemption under Section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\"\n\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany adjudication, therefore, we move to Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany adjudication, therefore, we move to Ground No. 2, which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n\n-5-\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require\nany adjudication, therefore, we move to Ground No. 2, which

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

10. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income warranting levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(C) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

10. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income warranting levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(C) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel

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

disallowed by both AO as well learned CIT(A), are as under: :- 11 -: Particulars Amount in INR Scholarship to students 9,99,050 Flood Relief work 57,319 Salary Payable 8,65,937 P.F. Payable 75,277 Rent payable 3,00,000 Total 22,97,583 5. Aggrieved by an appellate order passed by learned CIT(A), the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

c) of the Act, without\nappreciating the contentions placed in the above grounds.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, supplement, amend, delete or otherwise\nmodify any of the grounds stated hereinabove at the time of hearing.\n- 4 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n4. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and hence, doesn't require