DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

249 49,70,04,000 iii. Besides the above, we have incurred stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.5,46,78,440/- The above purchases were made at a total cost of Rs. 55,16,82,440/-. iv. The entire sale consideration was paid through Demand Drafts. I have not paid any consideration over and above what is mentioned

PON MANIBASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. CHE-W-(105)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2534/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2020-21

house property loss amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. Pon Manibaskaran :: 3 :: 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), before whom assessee brought to his notice that he was not given proper opportunity by the AO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee also brought to his notice certain incidents like the AO issued inter

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80G for the sole reason that the receipts were produced in the course of the hearing and that the claim was not made in a revised return and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance. 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR submitted that the assessee has purchased the rice mill such as land and building, machineries

P. DIVAGAR,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

house by July 2011 and hence the assessee was entitled to the exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the reinvestment of the sale consideration in a new property within the statutory period was the sole criterion for exemption and not the completion of construction and hence the denial of exemption was arbitrary

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee as regards investment in house property are not based on truth, inclusion of the same in assessee's income would be justified

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee

A.G.T. ELECTRONICS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

249(2)(b) of the Act. In this regard, the explained the cause of delay as under: The Appellant instead of filing the appeal preferred revision petition u/s 264 of the Act on 11.06.2016 and the said revision petition was considered and dismissed in the order passed by the PCIT, Pondicherry in C.No.9127/2/PCIT/PDY/264/2017-18 dated 28.03. 2018. In the light

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various

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

properties, to impart any other system i.e. education training to encourage sportsmanship and adventurous spirit to make pecuniary grants by way of scholarships, to make available and provide free of costs or at concessional rates audio visual equipment, scientific and engineering equipment, scientific laboratory equipment, stores, spares and all other teaching aids and accessories to students, scholars, teachers and others

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

house and residential institutions for students both connected with the institution”. We find no dispute with regard to objects of the assessee mentioned hereinabove from the AO, CIT(A) and ld. DR and their objection is only that there was no charitable activity in the form of education during the years under consideration and section 11 exemption is not available