RAM KRISHAN KULWANT RAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in RKKR SBQ group of companies on 26.09.2012. During the course of search operation, according to the Ld. counsel, the documents relating to registration of assessee-company was said to be found. Accordingly, a notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had also challenged additions made towards long term capital gain derived from sale of shares on the ground that although the AO has alleged that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus long term capital gain derived from sale of penny stocks, but failed to link the transactions of the assessee with

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

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.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), 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.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

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

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

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

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

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

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

132(4) would constitute evidence, and a valuable one at that, it cannot be the sole basis upon which an addition may be made in the context of block assessment. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal succeeds and substantial question of law qua no.1 is answered in favour of the assessee."\n\n72. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions