DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 125/[2021] 276 Taxman

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 125/[2021] 276 Taxman

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 125/[2021] 276 Taxman

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

14 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the provisions of section 2(22) (e) of the Act is not attracted if the recipient is not a shareholder: (b) The decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Checkpoint Apparel Labelling Solutions (India) Ltd. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 125/[2021] 276 Taxman

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

14. Referring to sub-section (7) of Section 101A of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Parliament in its wisdom clarified that the assessee or other insurer, over and above obligatory re-insurance as specified by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority of India with General Insurance Corporation of India also

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

2(15) of the Act and to deny exemption claimed under section 11 of the Act. She argued that the assessee acknowledged receipt of the said notice and filed objection on 07.07.2021, which was disposed of by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 10.12.2021. She further submits that the reasons recorded clearly outlined the Assessing Officer’s belief that

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

14. Regarding next issue, for not furnishing of actual copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, we find the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 22.06.2021 under section 143(2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is at page 89 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we note that the Assessing Officer mentioned the issues as per reasons

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

2) of the Act and the officer issuing notice under section 148(1) has to be the same person ; Section 129 is applicable when in the same jurisdiction, there is a change of incumbent and one assessing officer is succeeded by another ; and when once the initiation of reassessment proceedings is held to be invalid, whatever follows thereafter must also

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

2(24)(iv) of the Act, this benefit of Rs. 1.16 Crore has to be brought to tax, was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment proceedings either at the time of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act or in course of the reassessment proceedings. 14