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 based on fresh\ntangible material obtained during survey under section 133A of the Act on\n25.02.2019, wherein, Shri V. Rajendran, Chairman of the assessee Trust\nstated on oath that the Trust's activities were limited to the sale of books,\nnotebooks and uniforms run by DAV School Trust. The said information\nreveals that the assessee was not engaged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

11. Without prejudice to the facts discussed above assessee is claiming that it is a developer and not a works contractor and is therefore eligible for deduction under section 80 IA(4). Even if it is held that assessee is a developer, only income earned from operating the developed infrastructure facility is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

11. Without prejudice to the facts discussed above assessee is claiming that it is a developer and not a works contractor and is therefore eligible for deduction under section 80 IA(4). Even if it is held that assessee is a developer, only income earned from operating the developed infrastructure facility is eligible for deduction under section 80IA(4) r.w.s

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS 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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

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

11. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos.2 to 4 of the assessee appeal for AYs 2012-13 to 2016-17 is upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment by the AO submitted that assessments

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

11,08,393/- under section 801A(4), In connection with this claim\nwritten submission is filed stating the assessee is developing certain\ninfrastructure projects income of which is claimed as deduction under\nsection 80IA(4). Regarding the eligibility of the deduction the main\nclaim of assessee is that all the jobs undertaken by the assessee clearly\nsatisfies the requirements stipulated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

11,08,393/- under section 801A(4), In connection with this claim\nwritten submission is filed stating the assessee is developing certain\ninfrastructure projects income of which is claimed as deduction under\nsection 80IA(4). Regarding the eligibility of the deduction the main\nclaim of assessee is that all the jobs undertaken by the assessee clearly\nsatisfies the requirements stipulated

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

4. It is trite law that if an act is invalid, it may not be cured and in these circumstances, the doctrine of relation back was not applied in the said case. Therefore, a fine distinction is to be drawn and understood. If the irregularity in the original return is curable, then the doctrine of relation back would apply

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

11 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 firm ceased to exist and the tax liability must be assessed in the hands of the legal heirs of the deceased partner, then section 45(4) and section 189 would be rendered otiose. He referred to decision in the case of Joint Receivers of United Film Exhibitors v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 518 (Kerala) (at paragraphs

PLANTIUM HOLDING P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3436/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Platinum Holdings Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.2/1, Abu Garden, Omr Road, Central Circle-3(4) Vs. Navalur, Chennai-600 103. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-8781-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

4 companies of assessee group. The Ld. AO proceeded to add proportionate on-money in the hands of the assessee. The assessee denied having received any such payment and submitted that the same would have been received by BVR in his individual capacity. However, Ld. AO alleged that the assessee could not escape the responsibilities for the action

SIVA SAKTHI SATHYA SAI CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD 4, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2944/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Income Tax Officer, Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward 4, 3/16, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chennai. Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [Pan: Aadts-5679-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 11(5) of the Act and shown in the audited financials of the assessee as on 31.03.2018. Therefore, rejecting the accumulation of income by the AO and that of ld.CIT(A) merely on account of inadvertent error in filling the accumulation amount in the original Form No.10 is not acceptable. Moreover, the revised form No.10 also been filed

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

reassessment proceedings are within the period of limitation prescribed in Section 149 of the Act. It is not acceptable. Section 149 of the Act sets out, inter alia, the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Apart from the period of limitation set out in the said Section, the first proviso lays down a further restriction

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1222/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1223/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1224/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1225/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21,Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

11. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the rejection of the affidavits and the explanation provided by the appellant on the ground that other parties had not appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the summon issued by them was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts