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

5. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedence, opined that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as the issue of bogus long term capital gains derived from sale of certain shares through certain

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

5. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedence, opined that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as the issue of bogus long term capital gains derived from sale of certain shares through certain

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

5. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedence, opined that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as the issue of bogus long term capital gains derived from sale of certain shares through certain

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

5. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedence, opined that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as the issue of bogus long term capital gains derived from sale of certain shares through certain

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

5. The PCIT, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedence, opined that assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In so far as the issue of bogus long term capital gains derived from sale of certain shares through certain

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

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

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

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

132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 & 2015-16) Varadappan

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

132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 & 2015-16) Varadappan

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,56,88,000 Pazhanthandalam 63/1 (v) Land at Pazhanthandalam 7,14,49,000 66/2c (vi) Kunrathur Project Site 6,84,67,000 (713 pt) (vii) Kunrathur Project Site 14,87,97,000 (714 pt) (viii) Kunrathur Project Site 11,00,39,000 (713 pt) (C) Other Advances 1091,000 (i) Land Advance Nemeli 91,000 Village (ii) Land Pazhanthandalam

LALITHA KUMARI PRAKASH CHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

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

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

132/- under the head long term capital gains. 9. For that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the actual consideration received by the appellant for the shares transferred was only Rs.4,46,69,825/- and not Rs.13,63,10,512/- as adopted by the Assessing Officer. 10. For that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

5. Further, against the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act, from the sale deed No. 3617/2015, the Assessing Officer noted that the property was certified by the SRO as vacant land. Accordingly, 4 I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/25 the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act. 6. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) directed

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted