SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gain transaction was not considered and examined at all while making the decision. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 243 TTR 83 (SC)2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) that an incorrect

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

119 of the Act.\"\n91. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles and adverting to the facts\nof the case on hand, we observe that the additions made by the AO on account\nof increase in capital u/s.68 of the Act and the disallowance of certain\nexpenditure u/s.14A of the Act admittedly fall within the scope of issues for\nwhich

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

capital gains. While passing the impugned order, the Ld PCIT placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex court to support his arguments on earnings from business or income from house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

gains chargeable under section 45", but right now we are confined to normal connotations of the expression 'income'. Howsoever liberal or narrow be the interpretation of expression 'income', it cannot alter character of a receipt, i.e. convert a capital receipt into revenue receipt or vice versa. The crucial distinction between capital and revenue cannot be blurred or nullified by even

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain for the AY 2014-15.\n\n4.0\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that the\norder dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld.AO is barred by limitation within\nthe meanings of section 153(3). It has been argued inviting reference to\nthe statutory provisions of section 153(3) as well as judicial precedents\ncovering the subject

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. MOHAMED MUYEENUDDIN PAZHOOR KOCHU MOHAMED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Mohamed Muyeenuddin Income Tax, Vs. Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Central Circle 1(2), E1, 2Nd Main Road, Chennai. Juhu Beach, Sholinganallur S.O., Uthandi, Kanchipuram – 600 119. Pan: Aaipm 4366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darshan Bothra, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025

119. PAN: AAIPM 4366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Darshan Bothra, CA सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the Revenue

ACIT, NCC-22,, TAMBARAM vs. SHRI KAMAL CHILAKA,, KANATHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Capital Gain of Rs.6,46,02,771/- and also added non-compete fee of Rs.4,39,68,334/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged reopening on change of opinion and CIT(A) held that there is change of opinion and hence, he observed in para 5 as under:- “5. It is hence

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

119; or (iv) the order was not in accordance with binding judicial precedent. 2.1 Keeping in mind aforesaid principle, we proceed to adjudicate the captioned appeal. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the validity of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-4 (Pr. CIT) for Assessment Year 2017-18 vide order

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:

119(2)(b) the board allowed the assessing officers to reconcile disputed arrear demands by taking actions including rectifications irrespective of expiry of limitation period prescribed u/s 154(7). Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that in its case rectification was done by the Ld.AO taking support of above circular. 11. Coming to the controversy of the order u/s 154 being

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

119.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nPAN: AABCE-6928-K\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nअपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by\n:\nMr. S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT,\nप्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent by\n:\nMr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate\nसुनवाईकी तारीख/Date of hearing\n:\n01.05.2025\nघोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement\n:\n16.05.2025\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:\nThe captioned appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against\nthe order

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

LOGANATHAN DHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

119; or\n(d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is\nprejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or\nSupreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.]\n54[Explanation 3.-For the purposes of this section, “Transfer Pricing Officer” shall\nhave the same meaning as assigned

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

capital gains tax would be reconsidered by the Tribunal in case it comes to the conclusion that the notice dated 13/11/2000 is a notice within jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer’’. 11. Therefore, in the light of above settled position of law and respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts judgments referred supra , we admit