S.M.NOORUDHEEN SHAJAHAN,COIMBATORE vs. JCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.256/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri S.M. Noorudheen Shajahan, The Joint Commissioner Of No. 25A-4/1, Ami Mid Town, Vs. Income Tax, Range Iii, D.B. Road, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore 641 002. [Pan:Abcpn6465F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, Dated 16.11.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12, Wherein, The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹.43,90,810/- From Sale Of Lands Treating The Same As Business Income.

133A of the Act on 29.03.2011. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has sold 16,195 sq.ft. of house sites at Kovaipudur on various dates from 21.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 and claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act for purchase of residential house site at Parry Nagar. On verification of the return

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

property developer. It had actually incurred Rs. 11,48,99,378/- towards the cost of construction of Akash Malli Project as on 31.03.2012 but in its books it has shown this expenditure :-11-: under the head closing stock at Rs. 5,95,18,483/- only. The assessee has admitted at the time of survey that it has suppressed the value

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

houses and the total consideration received during F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.3,46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

property matter as claimed by the assessee is not acceptable in the eyes of law. We find that the reconstitution of partnership deed has been made by altering the share of profit among the partners based on the family arrangement, wherein all the partners are of one family. Hence, we find that, this agreement is in substance a family arrangement

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹.8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued since there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

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

133A of the Act on 25.02.2019 stating that the trust activities were limited to sale of books, notebooks and uniforms, which clearly supports the items which are placed under “direct income” in the income and expenditure statement at page 114 of the paper book. Therefore, we hold that no new tangible information has reached the Assessing officer vide statement recorded

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

133A of the Act on 25.02.2019\nstating that the trust activities were limited to sale of books, notebooks\nand uniforms, which clearly supports the items which are placed under\n\"direct income\" in the income and expenditure statement at page 114 of\nthe paper book. Therefore, we hold that no new tangible information has\nreached the Assessing officer vide statement

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

133A of the Act on 25.02.2019\nstating that the trust activities were limited to sale of books, notebooks\nand uniforms, which clearly supports the items which are placed under\n\"direct income\" in the income and expenditure statement at page 114 of\nthe paper book. Therefore, we hold that no new tangible information has\nreached the Assessing officer vide statement

KARUNAMOORTHI KAVITHA,DHARMAPURI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1732/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karunamoorthi Kavitha, Assistant Commissioner Of No.10A, Vijaya Hospital, V. Income Tax, Pennagaram Main Road, Opp Central Circle, Madheswara Theatre, Salem – 636 007. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan: Amfpk-6223-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

property was made by the appellant is one of the sources from the gift received from her mother and brother. 6. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate Sec.68 are not invocable in the case of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 15.06.2012. During the course of the survey, it has been noticed by the Department that the assessee has been claiming depreciation in respect of non-existing asset and also claimed various expenses without any supporting evidence. In view of the above fact, the Department

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premise of the assessee i.e., erstwhile Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited. Based on the information 3 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. gathered and also the details filed subsequently by the assessee in pursuant to summons issued under section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has not deducted

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premise of the assessee i.e., erstwhile Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited. Based on the information 3 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. gathered and also the details filed subsequently by the assessee in pursuant to summons issued under section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has not deducted

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premise of the assessee i.e., erstwhile Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited. Based on the information 3 I.T.A. No. 2804/M/14 & ors. gathered and also the details filed subsequently by the assessee in pursuant to summons issued under section 131 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has noticed that the assessee has not deducted