Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT (464 ITR 430)

Tayal Sons Private Limited, Hisar vs. DCIT, Hisar

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 3322/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151

…vide order dated 19-7-2024. We find that the Hon‘ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, being the Jurisdictional High Court for the assessee herein, by following the decision of Hon‘ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd vs ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bom); decision of Hon‘ble Telangana High Court in the case of KankanalaRavindra Reddy vs ITO reported in 156 Taxmann.com 178(Tel HC); decision of Hon‘ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Ram Narayan Sahvs Union of India reported in 163 Taxmann.com 478 (Gau HC) and after considering the decision of Hon‘ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Trit…

Jithender Tatia, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-115(92), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2618/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2618/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Jithender Tatia, The Ito, No.127, 9Th Block, Flat No.9031, Ward-115(92), 3Rd Floor, Tvh Lumbini Square, Chennai. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 007. [Pan: Aafpj 8967 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High C…

Vlspl 136 Vangloor Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2609/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2609/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Vlspl 136 Vangloor Primary The Ito, Agricultural Coop. Credit Society, Ward-1, Vlspl 136 Vangloor Pacb, Vellore. Walajapet, Vellore-632 513. [Pan: Aabav 0564 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 7. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 VLSPL 136 Vangloor PACCS :: 4 :: dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments…

Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, Kodimunai, Kalkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nagercoil, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2561/CHNY/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, The Ito, No.4/218, Anbiyam-23, Kodimunai, Ward-(1), Kodimunai Post, Kalkulam Taluka, Nagercoil. Kanyakumari-629 251. [Pan: Brlpd 0629 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High C…

Sa Feeds, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 2550/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…aid CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon'ble Telangana High Court i…

Palaniyappan Loganathan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2549/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2549/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Palaniyappan Loganathan, The Ito, 5/95, South Street, Ward-1(2), Navalur Attur, Salem. Salem-636 116. [Pan: Aqjpl 5540 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High C…

Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward 9(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2545/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2545/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, The Ito, Dr.No.1/10, Non-Corporate Ward-9(1), Kovur Vaithyanathan Street, Chennai. Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Gedps 3793 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Girish Kumar. S, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18.11.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High C…

Sathiskumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 2537/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2537/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Sathishkumar, The Ito, 1/126, Senkuttaipalayam Ward-1, Seerampalayam Post, Tiruchengode. Samayasangali Agraharam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal-638 008. [Pan: Ggwps 7474 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Kumar. SFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana Sathish…

Vellaisamy Natarajan, Pudhukurichi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: 19.11.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 7. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 8. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 tax…

Kgn Fitness & Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 8. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 9. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the…

Kgn Fitness & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjunraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Murthy AT, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271(1)(c)

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 8. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 9. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the…

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1905/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 10. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 11. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of th…

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1904/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…d CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 10. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 11. Furthermore, the above view is affirmed by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s.Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of th…

Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

ITA 1884/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1884/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, The Ito, No.6/16, Pallivasal Street, Ward-4, Vedampudur, Aiyampuram P.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 805. [Pan: Abepi 2962E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…2022 is directly applicable in this case. Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim :: 4 :: 6. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 7. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High Co…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2379/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

…id CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 is directly applicable in this case. 7. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd Vs ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 (Bom) has decided the controversy in favour of the assessee. 8. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in M/s Ta Infra Projects Limited Vs The DCIT [Writ Petition Nos.26645, 26654, 26667, 28497, 26788 of 2024 and 12437, 9561, 14549, 14664, 14674, 12873 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025], following the judgments of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court…

Pooja Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1026/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1026/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Pooja Aggarwal Acit Central बनाम/ Vs. House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abnpa-6660-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca)A/W Shri Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 Of The Act On 12-03-2025. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Substantive Addition Of Rs.16.21 Lacs & Protective Addition Of Rs.10.95 Lacs. The Additions Stem From Search Action By The Department On Assessee-Group On 04-

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

…ontroversy also has been dealt with by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. ITO, international Taxation 166 Taxmann.com 679 dated 28-08-2024) wherein Hon’ble Court, referring to the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (464 ITR 430), dealt with a case of international charge and adjudicated the controversy in favor of the assessee as under: - 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mistry, the learned amicus, it is clear to us that although the objection of Ms. Goel at the first blush appeared to be attractive, when we first heard the matter on earl…

Anup Kumar Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1019/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sh. Anup Kumar Aggarwal Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. House No.218,Sector-10 Shimla 171001 Panchkula – 134113 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adjpk-5842-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) A/W Shri Lovesh Bansal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 147 Of The Act On 12-03-2025. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Additions Of Rs.10.95 Lacs U/S 69 & Another Addition Of Rs.16.21 Lacs U/S 69A. The Additions Stem From Search Action By The Department On Assessee-Group On 04-

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

…ontroversy also has been dealt with by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. ITO, international Taxation 166 Taxmann.com 679 dated 28-08-2024) wherein Hon’ble Court, referring to the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (464 ITR 430), dealt with a case of international charge and adjudicated the controversy in favor of the assessee as under: - 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mistry, the learned amicus, it is clear to us that although the objection of Ms. Goel at the first blush appeared to be attractive, when we first heard the matter on earl…

Anup Kumar Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA)a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 127Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69A

…controversy also has been dealt with by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Abhin Anilkumar Shah vs. ITO, international Taxation166 Taxmann.com 679 dated 28-08-2024) wherein Hon’ble Court, referring to the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (464 ITR 430), dealt with a case of international charge and adjudicated the controversy in favor of the assessee as under: - 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mistry, the learned amicus, it is clear to us that although the objection of Ms. Goel at the first blush appeared to be attractive, when we first heard the matter on earl…

M. Agathiyan, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

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

ITA 2521/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2521/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuvel Agathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Keela Fourth Street, Mannargudi Ward 1, Post, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur 614 001. Thiruvarur. [Pan:Aihpa1940J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. K Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal & Submits That The Assessee Challenged

For Appellant: Shri S. Kaarthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 135ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…d by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, but, however, liberty was given to the Revenue to re-ignite the notice in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court interferes with the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. V. ACIT 464 ITR 430 (Bombay). Accordingly, we hold that the assessment order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the assessment unit of NFAC is bad in law and it is quashed. The ld. AR prayed to keep open grounds of appeal filed 7 I.T.A. No.2521/Chny/25 along with Form 36 for the assessee in case the Hon’ble Supreme Court interferes with the decision of the Hon’ble High Co…

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

…5 of 26 even the fructification of reassessment a vitiated exercise in law. The case laws being relied upon. are inter alia as held in a number of case laws including that of Ram Narayan Sah V Uol 340 CTR 505 Guj; Hexaware Technologies ltd V ACIT 338 CTR 536/464 ITR 430 Bom; Capital LG v ACIT 341CTR 1024 Bom Kairos Properties vs. ACIT 340 CTR 690Bom; Kanakanala Ravinder Reddy v ITO 334 CTR 646 Telangna. Jasjit Singh and Others v Uol 340 CTR P&H Jatinder Singh Bhangu v Uol 339 CTR 473 P&H, Kulwant Singh v Uol 341 CTR 700 P&H. The income tax act being an All India statute the judgments and judicial pronouncements…

Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT

Tayal Sons Private Limited, Hisar vs. DCIT, Hisar

Jithender Tatia, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-115(92), Chennai

Vlspl 136 Vangloor Paccs, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

Dicto Dino Raj Dennis, Kodimunai, Kalkulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nagercoil, Income Tax Office

Sa Feeds, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

Palaniyappan Loganathan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Salem

Sundaram Yesuraja Sunil, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corprate Ward 9(1), Chennai

Sathiskumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Tiruchengode

Vellaisamy Natarajan, Pudhukurichi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

Kgn Fitness & Development Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

Kgn Fitness & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

Abdul Kani Kareem, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, Chennai

Pooja Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Anup Kumar Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Anup Kumar Aggarwal, Panchkula vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

M. Agathiyan, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvarur

Santosh Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC