Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

…issal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before it. For such a proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in [2000] 6 SCC 359 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non- speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it wo…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

…issal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before it. For such a proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in [2000] 6 SCC 359 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non- speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it wo…

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

…issal implies that the Supreme Court has decided not to exercise its discretion to hear the appeal filed before it. For such a proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala reported in [2000] 6 SCC 359 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non- speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-speaking order, i.e. it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it…

SP CHIDAMBARAM,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM, KANCHIPURAM

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3934/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sp Chidambaram 21-A/6, Vallal Pachiyappan Street, Kancheepuram-631501 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aachc 3681 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Ito, Ward (1), Kancheepuram, 96, Munuswamy Mudaliar Avenue, Kancheepuram-631501 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. K. Subash Anbarasu, Adv प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.12.2025 For Ay 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.4 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Act. :: 2 ::

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

SUN POWER LIFE BATTERY CENTRE,KOVILPATTI vs. ITO WARD 2, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3390/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sun Power Life Battery Centre Ito Ward 2 Tuticorin No. 23H-25, Krishnan Kovil St, Kovilpatti-628501 19A Main Building, West Greater Cotton Road, Tuticorin-628001 [Pan: Abnfs 4366 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : Mr. K. Balasubramanian Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 14.10.2025 For Ay 2018-19.

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as ITA No.3390/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Sun Power Life Battery Centre Vs ITO W 2 Tuticorin :: 11 :: this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is con…

SHANMUGAM CHINNIA GOUNDER,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 1(1), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3366/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shanmugam Chinnia Gounder V. No. 240, Sasthiri Street, Avinashi Road Br Puram, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004 [Pan: Afkpc 1564 Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito Ncw 1(1) Све, Annexe Building, Tamil Nadu (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.05.2024 For Ay 2018-19.

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

VASU SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD 1(6),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No 3331/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vasu Saravanan Old No 39, New No. 2, Ramasamy Street, T Nagar, Chennai-600 017 [Pan: Apgps 9284 M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito, Non Corp Ward 1(6) Chennai, Room No. 412, Main Building Ayakar Bhavan, Nungambakka, Chennai, T.N-600034 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Mr. Y Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.09.2025 For Ay 2020-21.

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

JAYA CHANDRA RAJAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 1 TIRUNELVEL, TIRUNELVEL

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

SAMBASIVAM NANDHA,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 3(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3245/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Sa No.117/Chny/2025 [In Ita No.3245/Chny/2025] V. Shri Sambasivam Nandha, Ito, 10/305, 7Th Street, Nchatra Non-Corporate Ward-3(2), Garden, Oraikalpalayam, Race Course, Coimbatore, Masagoundenchettipalayam, Tamil Nadu-641018 Coimbatore Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ahepn0682Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. K. Gowtham, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

SIDHAMPOONDI PA CULTURAL COOP BANK LTD. S 1392,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sidhampoondi Pa Cultural Co-Op Bank Ltd S 1392, 2/173, Main Road, Kondarasampalayam Post P. Velur Tk, Namakkal-637203 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aabas 0168 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Ito, Ward-02, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-6370001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Mr. Arv Srinivasan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 12.08.2025 For Ay 2019-20. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.2 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 30.03.2023 Of The Act.

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

CPT ELECY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES COOP T&C SOCIETY,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHEEPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3058/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Cpt Elecy System Employees Ito, Coop T & C Society Che-W-(141) (91) No 30 S M Dass Avenue, Chennai, Iyappa Nagar, Tamil Nadu Kancheepuram-631501 [Pan: Aacac8508J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. CPT Elecy System Employees Coop T&C Society Vs ITO, WARD-1 :: 11 :: 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO wo…

SWAMEDAS PANITHASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD 17(2) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3056/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Swamedas Panithasan Ito, No 14/82 New No 20 Anna Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-17(2), Periyar Nagar A, T. Nagar Chennai. Chennai Alwarthiru Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-600087 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Axjpp4321R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

MEENAKSHISUNDARAM SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

INDIRAN SELVI,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VELLORE

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

KAMARAJ PRIYA,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2484/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. The Ito, Kamaraj Priya, 2/94, Chinnaian Street, Ward-1, Karuvakurichi, Tiruvarur 614 018. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Dwqpp1186K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate ITA No.24847Chny/25 (A…

JITHENDER TATIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-115(92), CHENNAI

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

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)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

VLSPL 136 VANGLOOR PACCS,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

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

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)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

DICTO DINO RAJ DENNIS,KODIMUNAI, KALKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

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

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)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…

PALANIYAPPAN LOGANATHAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

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

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)

…n T.K.S. Builders (supra), is no longer tenable in law. To buttress this argument, he has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of Mr. Chaudhuri are unmerited inasmuch as this Court has followed a consistent position that insofar as the jurisdiction of Delhi is concerned, both JAO and FAO would have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for re-asse…