M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

rectification was done by the Ld.AO taking support of above circular. 11. Coming to the controversy of the order u/s 154 being erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as held by Ld.PCIT, we have noted that the conclusion is not correct. As discussed herein above explanation-2 to section 263 states that

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act. 2. This is second round of litigation. Vide order dated 30.10.2013, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains at ₹.60,02,099/- was determined by the Assessing

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act. 2. This is second round of litigation. Vide order dated 30.10.2013, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains at ₹.60,02,099/- was determined by the Assessing

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Capital Gains (STCG) on these transactions. Initially, an assessment was framed wherein STCG was computed at Rs.52.10 Crores raising tax demand of Rs.479.08 Lacs. However, the order was rectified and the STCG were recomputed and corresponding tax demand was reduced to Rs.283.75 Lacs in rectification order passed u/s 154

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

VIMALARANI BRITTO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2992/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Vimalarani Britto Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 13, Kasturba Nagar, Income Tax, 3Rd Main Road, Adyar, Central Circle-2(4) Chennai-600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aadpv 8816C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act overlooking the narrow scope of the provisions in section 154 of the Act. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the issue raised with regard to the narrow scope of the provisions in section 154 of the Act while overlooking the provisions of Section

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

154 of the Act. The assessee further argued that a\nperusal of the remand report itself reveals that the AO had not obtained the\napproval of the Id.PCIT prior to passing the impugned assessment order.\nAccordingly, the assessee prayed before the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessment\norder, being void and unsustainable in law, be set aside.\n28. Upon a careful

VIRGO PROPERTIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

154 could only be subject to it being not a debatable or a contentious issue. That is, is only a mistake, apparent from record, on the part of the AO in assessing at the said figure. In this regard, it is well settled that s. 115-JB is a self contained code, and only the adjustments delineated under Explanation

K.GOPALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

154 against assessment order on 30.09.2016 which was rejected on 02.12.2016. The assessee filed revision petition u/s 264 on 15.07.2017 against rejection of rectification application. However, as per legal advice, the revision was withdrawn on 27.03.2018 and the assessee was advised to file further appeal against first appellate order before Tribunal. Since the assessee was residing outside India, the formalities

JAYANTHI KRISHNAMURTHY, L/R DIVYA KRISHNASAYEE,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III(4), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Amandhon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.893/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Ms.Diyyakrishnasayee Dcit बनाम/ L/R Of Late Jayanthi Krishnamurthy Central Circle-Iii(4) 12, Bakthavatchalam Colony Ii Street, Vs. Chennai. Vadapalani, Chennai-600 026. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Adxpj-7239-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

gains in para 7.5 to 7.8 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the observation of Ld. AO that the loan was taken for assessee’s business needs whereas the land was her capital asset. The claim that the loan taken by the company in which the assessee was director and interest paid on such loan should

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI vs. M/S RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain.\nIn order to assess/examine the same in the hands of the assessee, this case may\nbe reopened.\"\n6.\nA reading of the reasons recorded by the AO to justify re-opening is\nnoted to be regarding allowability of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining\nto AY 2000-01 & 2001-02 to be set-off against income of AY 2009-10.\nHowever

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

rectification petition under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal in I.T.A. No. 107/Chny/2021 filed by the assessee is delayed by 579 days, whereas, the assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit for 18 months. Since the assessee has not filed

SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

rectification petition under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal in I.T.A. No. 107/Chny/2021 filed by the assessee is delayed by 579 days, whereas, the assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit for 18 months. Since the assessee has not filed

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. However, the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court upheld the assessee's claim that the said amendment was prospective in nature and did not apply to block period falling before 01-06-2002. However, the plea of the assessee was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Suresh