DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

234/- on the joint property and ₹.5,62,65,625/- on the individual property as income from other sources. On perusal of para 6.5.7 of the impugned order, we note that the assessee has clarified that the deduction for the properties were claimed under two separate provisions of the Act, i.e., under section 54 of the Act for the land

K. VENKATESAN (HUF),SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1) SALEM, SALEM

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

234, Brindavan Road, 3rd Cross, Circle-I(1) Fairlands, Salem-636 016. Salem. PAN : AAHHK-3502-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of hearing 13.02.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 07.05.2025 : आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

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

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

housed in the same premises as the music school has a total of\n8,939 books on a variety of subjects and is an adjunct to the music school\nactivity. Shri S Muralidhar thus argued that the music school being run by\nthe assessee was in pursuance of its object of 'education' and it did not\nconstitute a 'general public

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

234 where the assessee trust was running newspaper and journals in Kannada language. The object of the Trust included educating the people through establishing and helping institutions. Practically printing of newspaper was the activity of the Trust. The Supreme Court Observed, "The sense in which the word "education” has been used in section 2(15) in the systematic instruction, schooling

ARUMUGA NADAR SOUNDARARAJAN REP BY L/H SUDARSAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 19(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Arumuga Nadar Soundararajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rep By L/H. Sri Sudharsan, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) No.16, Lakeview Road Extn, Chennai West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan: Aalps 5134J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Anand Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

House Property, etc., and the same has been accepted in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 19.11.2017. E For that the Ld. AO also failed to note that the details called for in the Notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in the course of assessment proceedings, were duly submitted with the evidences

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

234, Dare House, N.S.C. Bose Corporate Circle-5(1), Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai. Chennai – 600 001. PAN: AADCP 7827J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Philip George, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. RASI ASSETS CORPORATION, COIMBATORE

In the result, the ground raised in assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company VS dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore. 5. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 3 days

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. RASI ASSETS CORPORATION, COIMBATORE

In the result, the ground raised in assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Housing Development Company VS dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore. 5. For these grounds and for any other ground including amendment that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 3 days

S.VICTOR AROCKIAM,ARIYALUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid decisions have subsequently been reversed or stayed in any manner by any higher judicial forum. 8. We find that similar is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT V/s Meeta Gutgutia

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

234 (SC) as the\nprocess of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and\ncharacter of students by normal schooling. The sale of materials lacks\nthese elements such as curriculum or by oversight educational\nauthorities. The assessee's arguments that supplying text books\ncontributes to education requiring no physical school is untenable. The\nsupply of materials to DAV School Trust

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

234 (SC) as the\nprocess of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and\ncharacter of students by normal schooling. The sale of materials lacks\nthese elements such as curriculum or by oversight educational\nauthorities. The assessee's arguments that supplying text books\ncontributes to education requiring no physical school is untenable. The\nsupply of materials to DAV School Trust

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

234 (SC) as the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling. The sale of materials lacks these elements such as curriculum or by oversight educational authorities. The assessee’s arguments that supplying text books contributes to education requiring no physical school is untenable. The 28 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 supply