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)

45 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Ld. Counsel that third limb of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee companies. 16.8 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) notwithstanding to the adjudication on the applicability of second and third limbs of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, alternatively held that

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)

45 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Ld. Counsel that third limb of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee companies. 16.8 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) notwithstanding to the adjudication on the applicability of second and third limbs of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, alternatively held that

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)

45 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Ld. Counsel that third limb of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee companies. 16.8 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) notwithstanding to the adjudication on the applicability of second and third limbs of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, alternatively held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY 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)

45 I.T.A. No. 642 to 646/Chny/23 Ld. Counsel that third limb of section 2(22)(e) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee companies. 16.8 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) notwithstanding to the adjudication on the applicability of second and third limbs of section 2(22)(e) of the Act, alternatively held that

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

45 & 46, Whites Road, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 101. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) 2 I.T.A. Nos.1622 to 1630/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1356/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2310/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1662 to 1670/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.1367/Chny/13 I.T.A. No.2371/Chny/14 राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Ms. V. Pushpa, Jr. Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri

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

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Section 56(2) (xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act") ?\n4. The Id. Ld. Assessing Officer framed reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B\nof the Act vide order dated 13.08.2021 as under:-\n-3-\nITA No.1542 /Chny/2024\n1. The case was selected for complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-\nassessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:-\nS.No

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 45(2) of the Act would stand reduced. He thus contended that, the act of conversion was genuine and the short term capital loss so computed was correct, in as much as it was not done with any malafide intent to avoid tax. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the action

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

2)(b) cannot disturb that position. Learned Departmental Representative then contends that these amounts cannot be in the nature of capital receipt since no capital asset was transferred during the relevant financial period. We are unable to see any merits in this plea. The amount being in the nature of capital receipt, which can only be taxed as capital gain