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

47. It was argued by the Id. AR that sub-section 4A of section 11 of the Act would support the case of the assessee. On careful reading of the provision under section 11(4A) of the Act we note it explains that the exemption under section 11 of the Act would not be available to the profits and gains

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 28(iv). In view of the above, the amount of Rs.380,25,24, 600/- treated as capital gains by the assessee is required to be assessed as business income. 2. Provision for Warranty: 2.1 During the Financial Year 2007-08, the company has made provision for warranty for Rs.82,47,61,000/- and utilized a sum of Rs.54

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC): ITA Nos.1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17) M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. :: 45 :: "49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section

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

v. CIT, reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- “9. …Similarly, section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum "chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which expression, as stated above, do not find place in other sections of Chapter XVII

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693/ [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC): ITA Nos.1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 (AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17) M/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. :: 45 :: "49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under section