TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

section 2(47)(v) in the year under appeal. 5. Reference to Valuation Cell u/s 50C(2) not made: 5.1 Reference to valuation cell was not made by the AC in spite of the request by the Appellant, as provided in Sec. 50C (2) of the l.T. Act., particularly when the market value of the impugned property was found

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

15) of the Act.\n40. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on\nrecords. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the\nAssessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice dated\n23.09.2019 u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details

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

15) of the Act. 40. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on records. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the 32 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice dated 23.09.2019 u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections 143(2

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

House. This Tribunal held this activity to be a GPU\nobject and as the assessee had not complied with the proviso to sec\n2(15), the exemption was denied. In Murasoli Trust (supra) also, the trust\nwas found carrying on the business of publishing a newspaper on\ncommercial lines and thus falling foul of the proviso to sec 2(15

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

15) of the Act.\n40. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on\nrecords. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the\nAssessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice dated\n23.09.2019 u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

15) of section 2 of IT. Act. Since, sec. 11 will not operate in the assessee's case, the taxable income of the assessee is determined in a commercial sense, as envisaged by Board's Circular No.5P dated 19.6.1968. For better clarity, the relevant part of the Circular, for the purpose of the issue-in-hand, is given below: "Where

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vodafone International Holdings (supra). The provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, more particularly Section 2(9) was not considered by the Apex Court and that is not the subject matter of adjudication before the Apex Court. Therefore, this Tribunal