ITAT Chennai Judgments — November 2025

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's arbitrary adjustment based on comparing profits without identifying specific arrangements between units was not tenable. The assessee's maintenance of unit-wise profit and loss accounts and submission of Form 56F supported this.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's arbitrary adjustment based on comparing profits without identifying specific arrangements between units was not tenable. The assessee's maintenance of unit-wise profit and loss accounts and submission of Form 56F supported this.

M/S. TATVA CLEAN ENERGIES PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1772/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted in the assessee's name and the assessment years were unabated, the invocation of Section 153A was not tenable. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under this section were quashed.

SUBBU CHETTIYAR MANICKAM HARIGANESAN,SALEM vs ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

ITA 1978/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct before lower authorities was unsatisfactory and not deserving of leniency. The justification for the delay was not accepted, and therefore, the delay was not condoned.

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly appreciated the complex issues involved, including valuation, financial statements, and the nature of the scheme under the Companies Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs JAYANTHILAL INDER CHAND JAIN, CHENNAI

ITA 1681/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the facts of the present case were identical to a previous decision in the case of 'overseas leathers' which was in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal concurred with the assessee's argument that mere filing of an appeal by the Revenue does not defeat a prior decision.

TIRUCHITAMBALAM PROJECTS LIMITED,NAGERCOIL vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGERCOIL

ITA 1689/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was absent and did not provide any valid explanation or evidence for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the lower authorities and found no reason to intervene.

SUBBU CHETTIYAR MANICKAM HARIGANESAN,SALEM vs ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

ITA 1979/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's conduct before lower authorities was unsatisfactory and not deserving of leniency. The justification for the delay was not accepted, and therefore, the delay was not condoned.

PARATHASAARATHY GAJENDRAN,VELLORE vs ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

ITA 2196/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits, sourced from rental income and money lending business, was credible and supported by past filings. The CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was found to be unjustified and was quashed.

ABDUL JABBAR JAHEER HUSAIN,CHENNAI vs ITO, NCW-8(2),, CHENNAI

ITA 2245/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully substantiate the expenditure for the deduction claimed, it did not necessarily amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the disallowance constituted only approximately 8% of the total expenditure claimed.

POINT MANI JANAKI,CHENNAI vs ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPUR

ITA 2306/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Fixed14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee violated the proviso to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act by owning more than one residential property. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted a lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the construction of a new house or demolition of the old one, considering it potentially illegal construction.

ACIT, CHENNAI vs UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025Remanded

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not properly appreciated the complex issues involved, including valuation, financial statements, and the nature of the scheme under the Companies Act. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

M/S. OJAS PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1769/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted in the assessee's name and the assessment years were unabated, the invocation of Section 153A was not tenable. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under this section were quashed.

M/S. PIPPALA LEAF DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1770/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted in the assessee's name and the assessment years were unabated, the invocation of Section 153A was not tenable. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under this section were quashed.

M/S. TATVA RENEWABLE POWER PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1771/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted in the assessee's name and the assessment years were unabated, the invocation of Section 153A was not tenable. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under this section were quashed.

M/S. MAHINDRA ORCHARDS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1793/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that since no search was conducted in the assessee's name and the assessment years were unabated, the invocation of Section 153A was not tenable. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under this section were quashed.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO's arbitrary adjustment based on comparing profits without identifying specific arrangements between units was not tenable. The assessee's maintenance of unit-wise profit and loss accounts and submission of Form 56F supported this.

KALLAKURICHI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS UNIT II,VILLUPURAM vs ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2295/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that income from sources like scrap, interest on FD, and dividend cannot be deducted from the cost of production for valuing closing stock, as these are not part of business income. Consistency with past decisions was also emphasized.

KALLAKURICHI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS UNIT II,VILLUPURAM vs ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2293/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that income from sources like scrap, interest on FD, and dividend cannot be deducted from the cost of production for valuing closing stock, as these are not part of business income. Consistency with past decisions was also emphasized.

KALLAKURICHI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS UNIT II,VILLUPURAM vs ACIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

ITA 2294/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that income from sources like scrap, interest on FD, and dividend cannot be deducted from the cost of production for valuing closing stock, as these are not part of business income. Consistency with past decisions was also emphasized.

SALAIPUDUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,ERODE vs ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

ITA 1967/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that opting for Section 115BAD is a conscious choice made in the return of income. Since the assessee explicitly stated 'No' and the Department did not act on Form-10IF, the deduction u/s 80P cannot be denied. The appeals were allowed.

M/S. ASHOK MAGNETICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2301/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A, confirmed by the CIT(A), was not justified. It noted that the Explanation to Section 14A, which came into effect from 01.04.2022, was not applicable to the assessment year 2014-15.

JEEVA,TIRUPUR vs ITO, CIRCLE 1, , TIRUPUR

ITA 2167/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO exceeded the scope of limited scrutiny and made additions under Section 68 of the Act without proper justification and without confronting the assessee. The Tribunal found that the cash receipts were from sale proceeds, duly recorded, and income was offered for tax, and additions cannot be made merely due to non-submission of accounts by the other party.

AVANTI HYDRO LLP,CHENNAI vs DCIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 3125/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient time for the assessee to offer an explanation regarding the enhancement of assessment. The 2-day notice issued was deemed unreasonable, violating legal requirements.

PALLAVI DAS,CHENNAI vs ITO, NON CORP. WARD 7(1) CHE, CHENNAI

ITA 1026/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that as per Section 151A of the Act and the CBDT notification, reassessment notices must be issued by a faceless assessing officer. Following the High Courts of Bombay and Madras, the notice issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer was deemed invalid, rendering the reassessment order void ab initio.

DINESH KUMAR JEETENDRA BHANDARI,CHENNAI vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENAI

ITA 1686/CHNY/2025[2016-2017]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income, irrespective of whether the income earned was less than the expenditure. The disallowance made by the CIT(A) was deleted.

SALAIPUDUR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,ERODE vs ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

ITA 1966/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Nov 2025AY 2023-24Allowed

The Tribunal held that opting for Section 115BAD is a conscious choice made in the return of income. Since the assessee explicitly stated 'No' and the Department did not act on Form-10IF, the deduction u/s 80P cannot be denied. The appeals were allowed.

JANARTHANAN GAJALAKSHMI,SALEM vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

ITA 1968/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence and conflicting statements regarding the improvement expenses. While initially upholding the CIT(A), they decided to remand the matter for limited cross-examination of a purchaser regarding development expenses and for examination of remaining commission payees.

M/S. ARUN EXCELLO REALTY PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2267/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified as it amounted to double taxation. The details regarding the written-off amount were not available to the lower authorities.

ROYAL SHELTER,TRICHY vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

ITA 1782/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Considering the assessee's undertaking to cooperate and the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, subject to the payment of ₹.25,000/- as costs.

KARTHICKEYAN SATHYA,PUDUKKOTTAI vs ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

ITA 1738/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the addition made for cash deposits during demonetization was unjustified as the assessee's cash book and turnover supported the availability of funds, and Rule 6DD(e)(iii) of IT Rules was applicable. The addition for unexplained agricultural income was also deleted as the assessee provided supporting evidence, and previous years' income offered for tax was comparable.

RAVIRAJ VARADHARAJ,CHENNAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,NCW 8(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2468/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Partly Allowed

The Tribunal decided to remand Ground No. A (loan creditors) to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit supporting details. For Ground No. B (expenses), the disallowance was restricted to 5% of total expenses. For Ground No. C (remission/cessation), the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

ITA 2022/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals were reasonable. For ITA Nos. 2020 & 2021/Chny/2025, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/-. For ITA No. 2022/Chny/2025, the Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory notices and sustained the penalty, dismissing the appeal.

BAHWAN CYBERTEK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CORPORATE RANGE -1,, CHENNAI

ITTPA 50/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

On the issue of foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's TP study excluded it, and the TPO had initially accepted it. The CIT(A) included it without an enhancement notice. The Tribunal found the assessee unable to clearly demonstrate how the CIT(A) included the loss. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for the assessee to explain the inclusion. Regarding corporate guarantee commission, the Tribunal held that following the amendment by Finance Act 2012, specifically Explanation 1(e) to section 92B(2), corporate guarantee commission is to be treated as a deemed international transaction. Therefore, the assessee's contention was rejected, and the ground was dismissed. On the issue of Foreign Tax Credit, the Tribunal held that the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. confirmed that an Indian company is eligible for tax credit under Article 25(4) of the India-Oman DTAA even if no tax was paid in Oman, provided the exemption was to promote economic development. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the claim solely for the lack of a specific letter from Omani authorities, which the Supreme Court held was not a mandatory precondition. Following the Supreme Court and the ITAT Bangalore's decision in Kemwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the foreign tax credit. The grounds were allowed.

BAHWAN CYBERTEK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs ACIT, CORPORATE RANGE -1,, CHENNAI

ITTPA 51/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

On the issue of foreign exchange loss, the Tribunal noted that the assessee's TP study excluded it, and the TPO had initially accepted it. The CIT(A) included it without an enhancement notice. The Tribunal found the assessee unable to clearly demonstrate how the CIT(A) included the loss. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for the assessee to explain the inclusion. Regarding corporate guarantee commission, the Tribunal held that following the amendment by Finance Act 2012, specifically Explanation 1(e) to section 92B(2), corporate guarantee commission is to be treated as a deemed international transaction. Therefore, the assessee's contention was rejected, and the ground was dismissed. On the issue of Foreign Tax Credit, the Tribunal held that the Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. confirmed that an Indian company is eligible for tax credit under Article 25(4) of the India-Oman DTAA even if no tax was paid in Oman, provided the exemption was to promote economic development. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the claim solely for the lack of a specific letter from Omani authorities, which the Supreme Court held was not a mandatory precondition. Following the Supreme Court and the ITAT Bangalore's decision in Kemwell (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the foreign tax credit. The grounds were allowed.

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

ITA 2020/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals were reasonable. For ITA Nos. 2020 & 2021/Chny/2025, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/-. For ITA No. 2022/Chny/2025, the Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory notices and sustained the penalty, dismissing the appeal.

MONOTECH SYSTEMS LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated merely on a change of opinion by the AO, as the same facts were already examined during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment order was unsustainable in law.

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs HARIWAY LINES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1657/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,80,14,988/- made by the AO on account of disallowed wages was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account u/s. 145, nor had he recorded any finding that the accounts were unreliable or incomplete. The Tribunal noted that the addition exceeded the total wage expenditure debited by the assessee, rendering it illogical and arithmetically unsound. It was observed that the assessee's business was labor-intensive, and substantial wage expenditure was normal. The Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. SPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., stating that defects in voucher maintenance might justify partial disallowance but not treating the entire expenditure as fictitious. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld.CIT(A)'s finding that the 'MD Personal' narrations could signify business exigencies and that the AO lacked cogent evidence to prove personal use by the Managing Director. The Ld.DR could not controvert these findings. The appeal in ITA No. 1662/CHNY/2025 concerning Rishi Enterprises, with an addition of Rs. 8,25,09,971/-, was also dismissed following the same reasoning.

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

ITA 2531/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that filing a return was not required due to incurring a net loss after depreciation, which constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), ERODE

ITA 2021/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeals were reasonable. For ITA Nos. 2020 & 2021/Chny/2025, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the issues on merits, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000/-. For ITA No. 2022/Chny/2025, the Tribunal found non-compliance with statutory notices and sustained the penalty, dismissing the appeal.

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2.4, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs RISHI ENTERPRISES, PUDUKKOTTAI

ITA 1662/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,80,14,988/- made by the AO on account of disallowed wages was unsustainable. The reasoning was that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of account u/s. 145, nor had he recorded any finding that the accounts were unreliable or incomplete. The Tribunal noted that the addition exceeded the total wage expenditure debited by the assessee, rendering it illogical and arithmetically unsound. It was observed that the assessee's business was labor-intensive, and substantial wage expenditure was normal. The Tribunal cited the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. SPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., stating that defects in voucher maintenance might justify partial disallowance but not treating the entire expenditure as fictitious. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld.CIT(A)'s finding that the 'MD Personal' narrations could signify business exigencies and that the AO lacked cogent evidence to prove personal use by the Managing Director. The Ld.DR could not controvert these findings. The appeal in ITA No. 1662/CHNY/2025 concerning Rishi Enterprises, with an addition of Rs. 8,25,09,971/-, was also dismissed following the same reasoning.

THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

ITA 2535/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that filing a return was not required due to incurring a net loss after depreciation, which constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2601/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(viib) is not applicable to shares issued on a pro-rata basis to existing shareholders, as it is akin to a rights issue and does not result in a change in the shareholder's wealth or holding percentage.

D AJEETHRAJ CHORDIA & SONS,CHENNAI vs ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -4(5), CHENNAI

ITA 2143/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that there was a bonafide and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

KANGAYAM CHENNPALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2, COIMBATORE

ITA 1606/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the agricultural income claim solely for non-submission of receipts and invoices for expenditure was not justified, especially considering the consistent acceptance of such claims in previous and subsequent assessment years.

ALINA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2271/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23Dismissed

The assessee's counsel submitted that the appellant wished to withdraw the appeal. Considering this submission, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR,ERODE vs ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

ITA 2170/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years were invalid as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. The addition made consequent to the invalid reopening was also set aside.

ARULAPPAN SOOSAI,NILIGRIS vs ITO, WARD 1, OOTY, OOTY

ITA 2169/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 44AD(1) clearly allows for 6% presumptive rate when receipts are through banking channels. Regarding Section 69A addition, the Tribunal found that cash withdrawals and past savings adequately explained the amount, directing deletion of the addition.

MADURA COATS EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SERVICE CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 2345/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee's letter treating the original return as compliance was sufficient. The two sets of directions issued by JCIT without cancelling the first led to procedural irregularity and a breach of natural justice. The assessment order was not sustainable.

KETTIMUTHUGOUNDER,ERODE vs ITO, WARD 2(1). CHENNAI, ERODE

ITA 2149/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the AO for verification of the cash deposit. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity to cooperate during the verification process.