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

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

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

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

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

142(1) of the 335\nAct\n23 05.04.2021 Assessment order passed under Section 341\n143 (3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act\nCITATIONS\n24 12.10.2022 M/s. Trivitron Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. The Dy. 345\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Corporate\nCircle-3(1), Chennai Income Tax\nAppellate Tribunal, Chennai ITA NO.\n1340/CHNY/2019\n25 24.06.2022 M/s. Trivitron Healthcare

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

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman Koil Street, Madipakkam Rs. 48,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 14,400 Rs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

House Property, Business) and not a deeming provision to assess to tax receipts that are not income. Hence, Section 56(1) cannot be resorted to assess a receipt that does not constitute income. This proposition has been upheld by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT v D P Sandu Bros [2005] 142

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

House Property,\nBusiness) and not a deeming provision to assess to tax receipts\nthat are not income. Hence, Section 56(1) cannot be resorted\nto assess a receipt that does not constitute income. This\nproposition has been upheld by the hon'ble Supreme Court of\nIndia in CIT v D P Sandu Bros [2005] 142

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

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

sections": ["23(1)", "23(5)", "143(3)", "144B", "270A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "24(b)", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "270A(9)", "270A(8)", "270A(3)", "270A(6)(b)", "143(1)"], "issues": "Whether the addition of deemed income from house property

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

sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response\nto the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the\nassessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment\norder. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee objects are\n\"to run college, to help the poor

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

sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response\nto the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the\nassessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment\norder. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee objects are\n\"to run college, to help the poor

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman\nKoil Street, Madipakkam\nRs. 48,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 14,400\nRs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur\nRs. 1,20,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 36,000\nRs. 1,20,000\nRs. 36,000\nRs.84,000\nRs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

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