INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

80G(5)(vi) as well as 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed the application in Form No. 10A for registration under section 12AA of the 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3006 & 3007/Chny/18 Act on 02.03.2017. The ld. CIT(E), vide

NILAA CHARITABLE TRUST,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

5. The CIT(A), however concurred with the view of the AO that assessee trust has not explained i) source of cash deposits & ii) genuineness and capacity of donors. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) reads as follows:- “It is pertinent to note that the appellant has failed to justify the source of cash deposits made to its bank

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

vi) Assessee has manipulated the allocation of expenses in A.Y. 2009-10 to prevent probe into gross loss in gold (vii) Assessee has manipulated in preparing the bill-diary matching chart for July 2011 (viii) Assessee is manipulating its sales bills to circumvent the provisions of Sec.139A (ix) Sales Tax authorities have found that his method of raising

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

vi) Assessee has manipulated the allocation of expenses in A.Y. 2009-10 to prevent probe into gross loss in gold (vii) Assessee has manipulated in preparing the bill-diary matching chart for July 2011 (viii) Assessee is manipulating its sales bills to circumvent the provisions of Sec.139A (ix) Sales Tax authorities have found that his method of raising

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

vi) Assessee has manipulated the allocation of expenses in A.Y. 2009-10 to prevent probe into gross loss in gold (vii) Assessee has manipulated in preparing the bill-diary matching chart for July 2011 (viii) Assessee is manipulating its sales bills to circumvent the provisions of Sec.139A (ix) Sales Tax authorities have found that his method of raising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

vi) Assessee has manipulated the allocation of expenses in A.Y. 2009-10 to prevent probe into gross loss in gold (vii) Assessee has manipulated in preparing the bill-diary matching chart for July 2011 (viii) Assessee is manipulating its sales bills to circumvent the provisions of Sec.139A (ix) Sales Tax authorities have found that his method of raising

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,14,24,514: 6.1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's preceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to adopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as claimed by the appellant for the eligible unit. 6.2. The CIT(A)-NFAC

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) LTU - II, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1402/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nM/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd.,\nNo.1, Sardar Patel Road,\nGuindy, Chennai-600 032.\n[PAN: AAAСА 4651 L]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8(1),\nLTU-II,\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1663/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20\nThe DCIT,\nNCC-8,\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nv.\nM/s. Ashok Leyl

68,14,24,514:\n6. 1. The CIT(A) is not justified in merely following the CIT(A) NFAC's\npreceding year's order i.e. for AY 2018-19 and erred in directing AO to\nadopt an incorrect margin of 6.09% instead of the margin of 11.51% as\nclaimed by the appellant for the eligible unit

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.11.2017, which is beyond four years, without mentioning any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides relying upon various case