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

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 2961 ["Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The Id. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate submits that the reopening of scrutiny assessment is barred by limitation under first proviso to section 147 of the Act. He submits that the assessee filed

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

6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required under rule 17 in Form No. 10 of the Act. If during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

6 is Dismissed. ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 22 :: 7.6 Ground of appeal No.7: 7.6.1 The appellant vide above grounds raised issue that while computing penalty, AO has not followed provisions of section 270A (10). 7.6.2 Section 270A (10) details about tax payable in respect of 'under- reported income' for the year. It reads as under: (10) The tax payable in respect

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

6 is Dismissed. ITA Nos.1166 & 1167/Chny/2023 :: 22 :: 7.6 Ground of appeal No.7: 7.6.1 The appellant vide above grounds raised issue that while computing penalty, AO has not followed provisions of section 270A (10). 7.6.2 Section 270A (10) details about tax payable in respect of 'under- reported income' for the year. It reads as under: (10) The tax payable in respect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

11) Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer V/s. K.L. Srihari (UHF)3. That was a case where an assessment was reopened under Section 147. The Supreme Court, after considering the original order of assessment dated 19 March 1983 and the order of reassessment dated 16 July

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare

SOTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment, recomputation or issuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) of notice with dynamic jurisdiction, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub and (c) of sub-section 151A of the Act. 15. Thus, on a bare

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

11 23 Mar23 Order under section 147 of the Act Issue of sub-contracting expense was examined and AO passed a clean order under section 147 of the Act after taking consideration response filed under section 133(6) by Keller India III. Rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act 12 26-Jul-23 Notice for rectification proceedings under section

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

11. As per the provisions of Section 153A, in case of a search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years. However, it is required to be noted that as per the second proviso to Section 153A