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

10A vide his order dated\n30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently\nargued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted\nthe returned income and formed an opinion that the assessee was eligible\nfor claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act during scrutiny\nassessment. He further argued that after considering the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [PAN:AACCN2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश

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

10A vide his order dated\n30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently\nargued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted\nthe returned income and formed an opinion that the assessee was eligible\nfor claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act during scrutiny\nassessment. He further argued that after considering the assessee

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

10A, 1st Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [PAN:AACCN2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 [second 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

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 [second 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

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 [second 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

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

147 of the Act for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 [second 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

M/S. ASPIRE SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

147 disallowing thededuction claimed u/s 10A at Rs.7,33,78,813/- , dated 30.03.2015. The assessee challenged the reassessment order beforethe CIT(A) pleading that the reassessment order is based on the change of opinion , hence it is invalid in law and the deduction claimed u/s 10A should be allowed from the year of commencement of manufacture and not from

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessments cannot be reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for that assessment year. In other words, if the AO wants to re-open the assessment after four

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development

SUTHERLAND GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 on 28.02.2014. Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however, the only ground urged before us is ground no.2 which read as under: - 2. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Business Development Commission and arriving at the conclusion that payments made by the Appellant to US Parent Company towards Business development