ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowed invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. 11. Similarly, the decision reported in 251 ITR 640 and another decision

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

11 of the Act during the original scrutiny\nassessment, after considering assessee's explanation with reference to\nthe questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act and verification of\nrelevant books of accounts and other details, in our opinion, reopening of\nassessment for denying the exemption is a mere change of opinion and it\nis not justified. Thus, the reassessment

T.RAJENDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20, CHENNAI

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.: 2032/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

disallowance of cash payment u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming additions made towards cash payments u/s. 40A(3) of the Act, without appreciating the fact that there is a business expediency in making cash payment in :-9-: ITA. No: 2032/Chny/2019 as much

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

11, 2002*, which made a distinction between the nominal members, associate members and sympathizer members. We are not concerned in this batch about the categorization of members. We are concerned about the distinction made between sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (viia) of sub-section (3). 58. The Revenue places reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench

VIRUDHUNAGAR CENTRAL DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the years are

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan, Shri Abraham P. George & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2012-13 & 2013-2014. The Virudhunagar District Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Tds Ward, 104/1, Madurai Road, Virudhungar. Virudhunagar 626 001. [Pan Aaaau 0147N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

11, 2002*, which made a distinction between the nominal members, associate members and sympathizer members. We are not concerned in this batch about the categorization of members. We are concerned about the distinction made between sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (viia) of sub-section (3). 58. The Revenue places reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:3315, 3316 & 3321/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2018-19

11. Out of the seven wind mill units, the assessee has withdrawn disputed claim in respect of Units K-109 and K-110 amounting to Rs.79,75,239/- out of total disallowance of Rs.4,51,13,396/-. The balance amount of deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of four windmill units u/s.80IA(4)(iv) of the Act is Rs.3

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

disallow exemption under section 11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued that in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in the original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not have reopened assessment on the same facts which were

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4)(iv) is\nattracted on the ground of violation of the condition specified in section\n801A(3)(ii) when the 'running business' of the 'wind mill undertaking' is\ntransferred to the assessee by the previous owner and that the stipulation in\nthe said condition that the 'undertaking' is not formed by the transfer

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

11 of the Act during the original scrutiny\nassessment, after considering assessee's explanation with reference to\nthe questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act and verification of\nrelevant books of accounts and other details, in our opinion, reopening of\nassessment for denying the exemption is a mere change of opinion and it\nis not justified. Thus, the reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. KUMARASAMY RAMAKRISHNAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are\nOrder pronounced in the court on 05th June, 2025 at Chennai

disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4)(iv) is\nattracted on the ground of violation of the condition specified in section\n801A(3)(ii) when the 'running business' of the 'wind mill undertaking' is\ntransferred to the assessee by the previous owner and that the stipulation in\nthe said condition that the 'undertaking' is not formed by the transfer

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

11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted to the persons referred under 13(3) in violation S 13(2)(b), read with S.13(3) of the Act" 7. The appellant further relies upon the circular No.387, Dated 6-7- 1984. Vide the said Circular, it has been laid down in para 28.6 that where a trust contravenes

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

11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted to the persons referred under 13(3) in violation S 13(2)(b), read with S.13(3) of the Act" 7. The appellant further relies upon the circular No.387, Dated 6-7- 1984. Vide the said Circular, it has been laid down in para 28.6 that where a trust contravenes

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

11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted to the persons referred under 13(3) in violation S 13(2)(b), read with S.13(3) of the Act" 7. The appellant further relies upon the circular No.387, Dated 6-7- 1984. Vide the said Circular, it has been laid down in para 28.6 that where a trust contravenes

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

11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted to the persons referred under 13(3) in violation S 13(2)(b), read with S.13(3) of the Act" 7. The appellant further relies upon the circular No.387, Dated 6-7- 1984. Vide the said Circular, it has been laid down in para 28.6 that where a trust contravenes

N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

11. The CIT(A) confirmed action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “5.2 As regards payment of Rs 5.92 crore for land, the payment towards stamp duty and registration fees will have to be excluded from the disallowance under section 40A(3

DCIT, OOTY vs. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

11. The CIT(A) confirmed action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “5.2 As regards payment of Rs 5.92 crore for land, the payment towards stamp duty and registration fees will have to be excluded from the disallowance under section 40A(3

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 11 of the Act. 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred confirming the treatment of income from kalyanamandapam as business income, despite the decision rendered in earlier Assessment Years treating such income as income from property and consequently erred in sustaining the denial of the exemption u/s.11 of the Act, without