UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

section 263 of the Act to hold that the\nassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the\nRevenue on this issue. Thus, ground Nos. 2(b) along with 8 raised by the\nassessee are allowed.\n45.\nGround Nos. 2(c) along with 9 are relating to income from\nunclaimed amount relating to policy holders.\n46.\nWe note

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

section 263 of the Act to hold that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on this issue. Thus, ground Nos. 2(b) along with 8 raised by the assessee are allowed. 45. Ground Nos. 2(c) along with 9 are relating to income from unclaimed amount relating to policy holders. 46. We note

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

section 263 of the Act to hold that the\nassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the\nRevenue on this issue. Thus, ground Nos. 2(b) along with 8 raised by the\nassessee are allowed.\n45.\nGround Nos. 2(c) along with 9 are relating to income from\nunclaimed amount relating to policy holders.\n46.\nWe note

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

section 263 of the Act to hold that the\nassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the\nRevenue on this issue. Thus, ground Nos. 2(b) along with 8 raised by the\nassessee are allowed.\n45.\nGround Nos. 2(c) along with 9 are relating to income from\nunclaimed amount relating to policy holders.\n46.\nWe note

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

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

TDS / TCS 467 18. - Details of acquisition and use of assets 479 19. - Certificate for grant of expenses under Section 481 35(2AB) of the Act 20. 05.03.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 485 21. 20.03.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section dated 488 05.03.2022 22. - Details of creditors 491 23. - Legal notices issued by parties

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

263 of the Act has submitted details about the sources for advancing Rs.43.26 crores and also for not collecting the interest on monies advanced to the tune of Rs.6,16,18,018, the fact remains that the impugned assessment order failed to examine the core issue on which the case was selected for scrutiny in the right perspective and passing

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

Section 263 unless it is shown that the view so taken by the Assessing Officer contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it. 13. On perusal of the above, we note that in the present case, the view taken by the Assessing Officer regarding non-deduction of TDS

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

TDS deducted as refund. The Assessing Officer accepted the return. However, the PCIT initiated proceedings under Section 263, holding that

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the Assessment order. 2.1. The Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that there is no error in the order relating to the issues covered by the notice u/s 263. 2.2. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to cause enquiry

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the Assessment order. 2.1. The Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that there is no error in the order relating to the issues covered by the notice u/s 263. 2.2. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the assessing officer has failed to cause enquiry

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS on each employee by treating it as perquisite u/s 17(2) of the Act. 5. The Learned Principal Commissioner erred in holding that the claim under section 36(1)(viia) is allowable on incremental advances only and not on outstanding advances. :-3-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 5.1 Learned Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the fact that the issue has been

KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

section 263 of the Act’’. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a trader in Butter and Ghee and filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 18.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.9,60,840/- and agricultural income of Rs.79,000/-. The case was selected for complete scrutinyand scrutiny assessment order was passed

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

263 of the Act may kindly be dropped.” 6.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, against the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has furnished the following details before the Assessing Officer: Sub: Scrutiny assessment of Smt. UMAIYAL RADHAI I PAN: AAKPU6790M Ref: AY 2015-16 With reference to your notice

H.KANNAN,MADURAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1315/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri H. Kannan, The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Unikans, 256/2, Vasuki Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Thiruvalluvar Colony, P & T Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai 625 002. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aakpk9016E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Retd. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Barath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 27.03.2019 For Ay 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Impugned Order Is Barred By Limitation As The Order Was Despatched Only On 05.04.2019 & Received By The Assessee On 06.04.2019. 2. The Impugned Order Is Illegal & Invalid As Notice Under Section 263 Was Issued On One Ground But The Order Was Passed On Different Ground Without Giving Notice To The Assessee.

section 263 of the Act, the assessee was show-caused to file reply with regard to the variation between the contract receipts as per profit and loss account and aggregate contract receipts as per Form 26AS. On examination of the assessment records, the ld. PCIT has noticed that the conciliation statement filed before him for the variation between the contract

RAJKUMAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4, CHENAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

263 as exercised by Ld. Pr. CIT on the ground that there was no error in the order and the conditions of Sec.263 were not fulfilled. During the course of original scrutiny assessment proceedings, Ld. AO raised a specific query on the issue of bad debts claimed by the assessee and all the relevant details were filed by the assessee

THE THANJAVUR DISTRICT CO OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,THANJAVUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE2(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

263 on mere assumptions and presumptions that the order had been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. The learned Principal Commissioner misdirected himself that the valid order passed by the Assisstant Commissioner was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue simply for the reason that the ITA No.404/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 The Thanjavur District