DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

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

143 Taxman.com\n276 (SC) held that the exemption requires that trust to be solely engaged\nin education with business income being incidental. She argued\nvehemently that the assessee's claim of concessional rate lacks evidence\nand it is irrelevant to the commercial character, further, the Id. CIT(A)\nrightly held that section 11(4A) of the Act does not apply

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

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

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

properties received by an assessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply to companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It was by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section 56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case

GLOBAL ENTROPOLIS (VIZAG) PRIVTE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

House, T. Chowdaiah Delhi. Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560 080 PAN: AADCG 1109J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S.Ananthan,CA & Ms. R. Lalitha, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश

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

143 Taxman.com\n276 (SC) held that the exemption requires that trust to be solely engaged\nin education with business income being incidental. She argued\nvehemently that the assessee's claim of concessional rate lacks evidence\nand it is irrelevant to the commercial character, further, the Id. CIT(A)\nrightly held that section 11(4A) of the Act does not apply

DURAISAMY SENTHIL KUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.552/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Duraisamy Senthil Kumar Vs The Income Tax Officer, 16, Muthurangam Street, Erode. Erode-638 001. Pan: Alwps 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 9,69,180/- on the presumption of misreporting of income of Rs.4,84,590/- as per the provisions of section 270A

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

property is not\nowned by Assesse by way of Sale Deed.\nS.No\n1\nEvent\n Assessment year 2016-17. Timeline for\ncompletion of assessment under Section 143(1)\n21 months\nDate\n31.12.2018\n2\nReference made to Valuation Officer under\nSection 142A\n28.12.2018\n3\nTimeline by which Valuation Officer should have\ncompleted assessment in terms of Letter dated\n28.12.2018\n28.01.2019

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

properties received by an\nassessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply\nto companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It\nwas by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment\nYear 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section\n56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to\ncompanies also. Thus, there is no case