ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

131 would not make the reassessment invalid. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Indo Marine Agencies (Kerala) P. Ltd., (2005) 279 ITR 372 (Ker), held that the entry would amount to an order under section

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

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

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

131 of the Act in the post search enquiries, as was reproduced in the satisfaction note. It was shown to us that, the assessee had also nowhere admitted that the cash allegedly paid back by these concerns were received by him in his own personal capacity or was used for his personal benefit. Rather, the assessee had submitted

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

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

131 of the Act in the post search enquiries, as was reproduced in the satisfaction note. It was shown to us that, the assessee had also nowhere admitted that the cash allegedly paid back by these concerns were received by him in his own personal capacity or was used for his personal benefit. Rather, the assessee had submitted

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

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

131 of the Act in the post search enquiries, as was reproduced in the satisfaction note. It was shown to us that, the assessee had also nowhere admitted that the cash allegedly paid back by these concerns were received by him in his own personal capacity or was used for his personal benefit. Rather, the assessee had submitted

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

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

131 of the Act in the post search enquiries, as was reproduced in the satisfaction note. It was shown to us that, the assessee had also nowhere admitted that the cash allegedly paid back by these concerns were received by him in his own personal capacity or was used for his personal benefit. Rather, the assessee had submitted

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

131 of the Act in the post search\nenquiries, as was reproduced in the satisfaction note. It was shown to us\nthat, the assessee had also nowhere admitted that the cash allegedly paid\nback by these concerns were received by him in his own personal capacity\nor was used for his personal benefit. Rather, the assessee had submitted

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

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice 11 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS (P) LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice 11 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation

ACIT, MADURAI vs. ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATE LTD., MADURAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for assessment year

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Aruna Alloy Steels (P) Ltd., Income Tax, V. Super B-3, Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle I, K-Pudur, Madurai – 625 007. Madurai. Pan : Aaeca 6781 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice 11 I.T.A. Nos.3, 933 & 847/Mds/16 subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub- section (2) of section 148. Explanation

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 3. The next common ground raised in all the quantum appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of depreciation as excess in the computation of taxable income

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 3. The next common ground raised in all the quantum appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of depreciation as excess in the computation of taxable income

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 3. The next common ground raised in all the quantum appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of depreciation as excess in the computation of taxable income

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 3. The next common ground raised in all the quantum appeals is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of depreciation as excess in the computation of taxable income

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