M/S. SUSILA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,, CHENNAI

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

b), the following clause shall be inserted, namely: - (ba)\nthe person in receipt of the income has furnished the return of income for\nthe previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) of\nsection 139, within the time allowed under that section."\n4.2 The Id.AR narrated that the CIT(A) simpliciter relied on the\nabove provision

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

b) to as to confer any undue benefit directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny the assessee benefit under section 11 for alleged violation. 12. In the above circumstance the assessee submitted the order of AO is computed the income of the assessee by applying

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

b) to as to confer any undue benefit directly or indirectly to the persons referred to in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Income Tax Act to deny the assessee benefit under section 11 for alleged violation. 12. In the above circumstance the assessee submitted the order of AO is computed the income of the assessee by applying

KAUMARA MADALAYAM,COIMBATORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.680/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kaumara Madalayam, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Chinnavedampatti Post, Vs. Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore – 641 049. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabtk 6034B]. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate IjथG की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 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 Assessee 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/250/2023-24/1059915043(1), Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 12.12.2017. :- 2 -: 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowed the exemption claimed under section 10(23BBA) of the Act and CIT(A) sustained the decision of the It is submitted that the CIT(A) failed consider the implication of the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. ii. It is submitted that the second proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act reads as follows: “Provided

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

disallowance. 5. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was not mandatory to file this form and it was a regulatory measure only. 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

ARUTPERUM JOTHI ARAKKATTALAI,SALEM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

disallow the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act when processing the return under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, the ld. Departmental Representative also vehemently submitted that according to the Provisions of Section 44AB of the Act, as per explanation (ii) the specified date means, the date of one month prior

VICTORIA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-3,, CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:946/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Victoria Educational Trust, Ito, 62, 6Th Street, Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, S.R.P.Colony, Chennai. Peravallur, Chennai – 600 082. [Pan:Aabtv-0115-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T.

disallowance of the claim of tax exemption u/s.11 of the Act was on account of the assessee trust filing the audit report in Form No.10B belatedly for the A.Y.2022 - 23 on application of the provisions in Section 12A(1)(b

SHRIRAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

b) the rest period or leave period which is preceded and succeeded by services rendered in India and forms part of the service contract of employment, shall be regarded as income earned in India." The Finance Act, 1999 which followed the Bill incorporated the substituted Explanation to Section 9(1)(ii) without any change. 13. The Explanation as introduced

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

disallow exemption under section\n11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued\nthat in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT\n[2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in\nthe original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not\nhave reopened assessment on the same facts which

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

1 (1.1 & 1.2) is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 21. Ground No. 2 (2.1 to 2.5) raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in not considering the submissions of the assessee in respect of validity of reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in the facts and circumstances

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)(d) and prayed for upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 18. In support of the same, the Ld.AR relied on the following decisions of the various courts: 1. CIT Vs. Indian National Theatre – 305 ITR 149 (Del) Loan or deposit with another trust / concern – amounts to application of income at para 11, the Hon’ble High

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

disallowance of Rs.42,29,48,758/- by the Ld.CIT(A) which was made by the Ld.AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was contested that the addition by the Ld.AO was based upon an arbitrary application of Rule-11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 3.0 During the course of present proceedings, the Ld.Counsel

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

disallow exemption under section\n11 of the Act to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. He argued\nthat in the case of Songwoon Speciality Chemicals India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT\n[2024] 169 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat), when the claim was accepted in\nthe original assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer could not\nhave reopened assessment on the same facts which

DEVASAKAYAM AANGILAPPALLI PARIPALANA SABAI,MADURAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, MADURAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:933/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Devasakayam Aangilappalli Income Tax Officer, Paripalana Sabai, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No.11, Devasakayam Matriculation Madurai. Hr.Sec.School, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. [Pan:Aaatd-0964-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

disallowed for the sole reason that the audit report in Form 10B was filed belatedly, the CIT(A) erred in failing to allow the same as the audit report was available before him. 6 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant's petition to condone the delay in filing the audit report was rejected by the CIT(Exemptions

ADIT, CHENNAI vs. S A A ISPAHANI TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

disallowed flows from the order of the A.Y.2001-02 where the preliminary violation of the Section 13(1)(c) are detailed by the AO. The repayment of the loan to the sister concern by the assessee Trust is continued in the A.Y.2003-04. Thus, this violation originates from the periods of the activities related to the construction of the commercial complex

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

disallowance of depreciation. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before us. 11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee