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

u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the assessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment order. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee

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

48 of the Income Tax act, 1961, the base year for the indexation being 2007-08 or increased every year at the simple rate of 5% per annum whichever is ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 13 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells higher. v. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 10.n.iii and clause 10.n.iv, the amounts payable to a Retiring Partner

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

48 of the Income Tax act, 1961, the base year for the indexation being 2007-08 or increased every year at the simple rate of 5% per annum whichever is ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 13 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells higher. v. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 10.n.iii and clause 10.n.iv, the amounts payable to a Retiring Partner

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

48 of the Income Tax act, 1961, the base year for the indexation being 2007-08 or increased every year at the simple rate of 5% per annum whichever is ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 13 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells higher. v. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause 10.n.iii and clause 10.n.iv, the amounts payable to a Retiring Partner

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

2. What is challenged in the writ petition is the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 . The petitioner has already filed a letter dated 20.12.2006 stating that the return filed under Section 139 of the Act may itself by treated as one filed under Section 148 of the Act for the present. 3. Therefore, suffice

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

2. What is challenged in the writ petition is the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 . The petitioner has already filed a letter dated 20.12.2006 stating that the return filed under Section 139 of the Act may itself by treated as one filed under Section 148 of the Act for the present. 3. Therefore, suffice

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

2. What is challenged in the writ petition is the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 . The petitioner has already filed a letter dated 20.12.2006 stating that the return filed under Section 139 of the Act may itself by treated as one filed under Section 148 of the Act for the present. 3. Therefore, suffice

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

2. What is challenged in the writ petition is the notice issued under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act,1961 . The petitioner has already filed a letter dated 20.12.2006 stating that the return filed under Section 139 of the Act may itself by treated as one filed under Section 148 of the Act for the present. 3. Therefore, suffice

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. KAMATCHIPURAM VELLINGIRI JAYARAMAN, COIMBATORE

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

u/s 147 of the Act as Invalid by relying on case laws prior to the amendments made in the Act by Finance Act 2016 in respect of section 147 of the Act w.e.f.01/06/2016 wherein under Explanation 3 It is mentioned that - "For the purposes of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso." 4.7 Thus, following the above principles laid down by The Honourable Supreme Court, it is concluded that the Assessing Officer acted like a reasonable person for arriving at a "reason" of escaped income on the basis of survey proceedings conducted, during the course of which

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

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

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

48,075/-.” [8] Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) justified the conclusions arrived at by the Assessing Officer and held that the amounts in question were I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 5 of 21 liable

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

48,400/- Rs.61,74,24,524/- Rs.69,79,90,661/- Aggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for the impugned

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

147 of the Act and disallowed the long term capital loss as well. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act in relation to the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act wherein he upheld the correctness of the long term capital loss as well

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2,30,18,841 Data Processing 21,39,308 27,20,398 48,59,706 Equipment Additional depreciation is not allowed on the above assets and hence the total additional depreciation claimed for Rs.2,78,78,547/- requires to be withdrawn. Further, exchange fluctuations amounting to Rs. 39,21,957/- (1st half) and Rs. 5,46,29,562/- (1st half

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act was initiated but he was not justified in doing so, when no addition was made in respect of item for which notice of reopening was issued. In the present case, admittedly, ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 25 -: notice for re-assessment is issued for the purpose of disallowing the expenditure claimed being the payment made to M/s. Sakshi