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

reassessment proceedings, on examination of the objects and income and expenditure statement issued show cause notice as to why exemption under section 11 of the Act should not be denied by observing as main activity of supplying uniform and note books is not a charitable activity as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. We find the assessee furnished

ITO, WARD-2,, PERAMBALUR vs. SHRI S.B. RAJA,, ARIYALUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri. S.B. Raja, Ward -2, V. No. 14, North Street, Perambalur. Soorkuzhi, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Tulak, Ariyalur 621 801. [Pan: Anzpr 3754L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. I.P. Roopa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022

10A, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Free trade zone -(Reassessment) - Assessment year 2001-02 ~ Whether

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

section 10A(1A) is mandatory and not merely directory. [Para 17] 21. To contradict the assessee’s contention to claim a deduction in reassessment

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

section 10A(1A) is mandatory and not merely directory. [Para 17] 21. To contradict the assessee’s contention to claim a deduction in reassessment

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

section 10A(1A) is mandatory and not merely directory. [Para 17] 21. To contradict the assessee’s contention to claim a deduction in reassessment

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

section 10A(1A) is mandatory and not merely directory. [Para 17] 21. To contradict the assessee’s contention to claim a deduction in reassessment

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

reassessment proceedings,\non examination of the objects and income and expenditure statement\nissued show cause notice as to why exemption under section 11 of the\nAct should not be denied by observing as main activity of supplying\nuniform and note books is not a charitable activity as defined in section\n2(15) of the Act. We find the assessee furnished

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

reassessment proceedings,\non examination of the objects and income and expenditure statement\nissued show cause notice as to why exemption under section 11 of the\nAct should not be denied by observing as main activity of supplying\nuniform and note books is not a charitable activity as defined in section\n2(15) of the Act. We find the assessee furnished

EH BUILDING CONSULTANCY PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIR 2(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10A of the Act in its return of income. b) In the reassessment proceedings, the AO questioned the allowability

M/S. ASPIRE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment order is based on the change of opinion , hence it is invalid in law and the deduction claimed u/s 10A should be allowed from the year of commencement of manufacture and not from the year of incorporation. The CIT (A) upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee filed this appeal with the following grounds

CONGRUENT SOLUTIONS P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 6

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Section under which the claim was preferred was incorrectly mentioned, such claim could not be disallowed. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 4. (supra) and held that assessee could not take advantage of the reassessment proceedings for claiming a relief not claimed in the original return. Further, according to him, Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment order] and 2009-10 were also initiated and against the appellate orders, the Revenue preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. Now, we shall take Revenue appeals, in which assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed. 8 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Chny/2008 [AY 2003-04] 3.1 The first

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD., CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment order] and 2009-10 were also initiated and against the appellate orders, the Revenue preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. Now, we shall take Revenue appeals, in which assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed. 8 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Chny/2008 [AY 2003-04] 3.1 The first

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment order] and 2009-10 were also initiated and against the appellate orders, the Revenue preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. Now, we shall take Revenue appeals, in which assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed. 8 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Chny/2008 [AY 2003-04] 3.1 The first

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR M/S. MASCON GLOBAL LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment order] and 2009-10 were also initiated and against the appellate orders, the Revenue preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. Now, we shall take Revenue appeals, in which assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed. 8 I.T.A. No.1139/Chny/08, 1135/Chny/10 & C.O. No. 69/Chny/17, 1136/Chny/10 & 632-634/Chny/17 I.T.A. No. 1139/Chny/2008 [AY 2003-04] 3.1 The first

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee