JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा

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

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the assessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment order. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee objects are “to run college, to help the poor

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order 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 Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the assessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment order. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee objects are "to run college, to help the poor

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) 1,50,000 (14.114.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (13.1 – 13.6) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2,81,25,000 (16.1-16.5) 3,00,000 (12.1 - 12.5) 158-169 63. We find that the additions made

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

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

142(1) of the 335 Act 23 05.04.2021 Assessment order passed under Section 341 143 (3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act CITATIONS 24 12.10.2022 M/s. Trivitron Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. The Dy. 345 Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ITA NO. 1340/CHNY/2019 25 24.06.2022 M/s. Trivitron Healthcare

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2,48,407 (11.5) 8,24,774 (13.4) 1,68,000 (12.5) 25,200 (12.6) 3,40,000 (12.7) 1,50,000 (14.1-14.6) 3,96,016 (11.5) 8,25,418 (13.4) 1

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]

142 was the copy of the agreement. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the value for which this property the measuring 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi was acquired was "33,51,000/-. This, alone was paid by the assessee and shown in its books. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the transaction was done at the guideline value

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]

142 was the copy of the agreement. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the value for which this property the measuring 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi was acquired was "33,51,000/-. This, alone was paid by the assessee and shown in its books. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the transaction was done at the guideline value

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]

142 was the copy of the agreement. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the value for which this property the measuring 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi was acquired was "33,51,000/-. This, alone was paid by the assessee and shown in its books. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the transaction was done at the guideline value

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]

142 was the copy of the agreement. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the value for which this property the measuring 22.34 acres of land at Brahmapuram, Katpadi was acquired was "33,51,000/-. This, alone was paid by the assessee and shown in its books. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the transaction was done at the guideline value

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

142(1) were issued. During the financial year 2009-10, the assessee sold a residential house 3 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 property for `1,12,00,001/- and claimed exemption under Section

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

142 (2A) of the Act, after the search, and concluded that the depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

142 (2A) of the Act, after the search, and concluded that the depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

142 (2A) of the Act, after the search, and concluded that the depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

142 (2A) of the Act, after the search, and concluded that the depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

142 (2A) of the Act, after the search, and concluded that the depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April