KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income.” Having considered the facts, in this case, it is undisputed that assessee’s case would not fall in any of the sub clause (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 270A of the Act, and the only clause which remains is clause

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

41 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells heard. The reassessment proceedings were held to be validly initiated. In the case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case

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

41 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells heard. The reassessment proceedings were held to be validly initiated. In the case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case

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

41 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells heard. The reassessment proceedings were held to be validly initiated. In the case of Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. lames Kurian, Asst. CIT, (2007) 294 ITR 341 (Guj), the Assessing Officer had found that there were errors in the computation of allowances. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case

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.

reassessment of the return of income of the appellant, within the time frame stipulated under the Act. In this case, the limitation period of six years for reopening the assessment for the year 2011~12 under section 147 of the Act, came to an end on 31.03.2018. In such circumstances, there is no requirement for this court to go into

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

section 11 exemption is not available. We 33 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 find the contention of the assessee that there was no educational activity but however the assessee decided to continue its charitable activity by purchasing land and constructing school building thereof. 41. According to the Assessing Officer in reassessment

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

41(1) and 43-B of the Act in respect of the reliefs and concessions to be availed of by the Assessee; to consider to exempt the company from applicability of payment of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under Sections 115JB and 115JAA of the Act, and to consider to exempt the company from the provisions of Section 80 read with