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 Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. The Id. AR Shri G. Baskar, Advocate adopted the same arguments advanced in earlier assessment year 2014-15 in respect of "change of opinion". He relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

184 & 185 of IDS 2016 does not arise. 60. In the instant case there is no doubt that the Form 2 has been issued. Can in the circumstance there be a presumption that the Form 2 has been served on the assessee. In this connection one may notice the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Section 292BB

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

184 & 185 of IDS 2016 does not arise. 60. In the instant case there is no doubt that the Form 2 has been issued. Can in the circumstance there be a presumption that the Form 2 has been served on the assessee. In this connection one may notice the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Section 292BB

UMAMAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

184 & 185 of IDS 2016 does not arise. 60. In the instant case there is no doubt that the Form 2 has been issued. Can in the circumstance there be a presumption that the Form 2 has been served on the assessee. In this connection one may notice the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Section 292BB

UMA MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, penalty-appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

184 & 185 of IDS 2016 does not arise. 60. In the instant case there is no doubt that the Form 2 has been issued. Can in the circumstance there be a presumption that the Form 2 has been served on the assessee. In this connection one may notice the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Section 292BB

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return o{his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

FAMILY HEALTH PLAN (TPA) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS WARD 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

184 taxmann 359 (Karnataka) upheld the demand raised U/s.201(1) and U/s 201(1A) for the assessment years from 2005-06 to 2010-11. With regard to the period for the levy of interest, -8- I.T.A. Nos. 733 to 744 /Chny/2019 the ld.CIT(A) held that since the assessee has not furnished the required details before him, he directed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

Section under which assessment order was passed 1 1872/Chny/2025 2013-14 07.04.2025 05.05.2021 153A r.w.s 143(3) 2 1873/Chny/2025 2014-15 07.04.2025 05.05.2021 153A r.w.s 143(3) 3 1875/Chny/2025 2015-16 09.04.2025 06.05.2021 153A r.w.s 143(3) 4 1877/Chny/2025 2016-17 09.04.2025 06.05.2021 153A r.w.s 143(3) 5 1878/Chny/2025 2017-18 09.04.2025 06.05.2021 153A r.w.s 143(3) 2. The issues

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Section under | | | | order of | assessment | which | | | | CIT(A) | order | assessment order | | | | | | was passed | 1 | 1872/Chny/2025 | 2013-14 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 2 | 1873/Chny/2025 | 2014-15 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 3 | 1875/Chny/2025 | 2015-16 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 4 | 1877/Chny/2025 | 2016-17 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 5 | 1878/Chny/2025 | 2017-18 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment proceedings had been completed vide order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 03.12.2019 revising ITA Nos.54 & 55/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s.MRF Ltd. :: 4 :: the income at Rs. 837,17,84,527/-. Thereafter, a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company on 20.11.2019 and pursuant