VEERASWAMY JOTHEESWARAN,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K

capital gains’ ------ [2021] 126 taxmann.com 105 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Mahender Pal Narang v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance* ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ. :- 5 -: SLP APPEAL (C) NO. 3021 OF 2021 MARCH 4, 2021 Section 56, read with sections 10(37), 45 and 145A

ABDULRAHMAN LIYAKATHALI,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1617/Chny/2025 'नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Abdulrahman Liyakathali, Acit, No.30/3, Bhavani Main Road, Vs. Circle-1, B.P.Agraharam, Erode. Erode – 638 005. [Pan: Abapl-5028-J] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+यथ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) क, ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate *+यथ) क, ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई क, तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा क, तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

section 145A(a)(i) of the Act. 8. The assessee further submitted before the AO that the business was in the process of closure and, consequently, the finished leather had lost its marketability on account of fungal deterioration. It was stated that approximately 40% of the opening stock remained unsold and continued as closing stock. The assessee explained that during

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

145A, Section 145B, Section 56(2)(viii) & Section 57(iv) by the Finance (No.2) Act. 2009 did not change the character of interest u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act from capital receipt forming part of enhanced compensation as envisaged in section 45(5) of the Act to revenue receipt' chargeable to tax as income from other sources

N BASKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 145A (b) of the Act were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 6. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 5.3.2 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the decisions relied upon in para 5.3.3 had no application

ITO, ERODE vs. S.NARAYANAN, ERODE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

145A. 4. We heard the rival contentions, gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Faridabad vs Ganshyam (HUF) 2009, 315 ITR 1 SC after analysing various provisions of :-4-: CO No. 32/Mds/2017 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held , inter alia, that Section 23(1A) provides for additional amount. It takes care

MALINI,THIRUNINDRAVUR vs. ACIT, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:2362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Malini, The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Ganapathy Puram, Near Vs. Income Tax, Ragvendra Nagar, Periyapalayam Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Road, Thiruninravur 602 024, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ajspm-9167-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 25.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

section 145A(b) of the Act. So far as addition made towards unsecured loan is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee, on that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal before the ITAT. 6. On being aggrieved against confirmation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT

CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain of Rs 1,77,106/- returned by the assessee would get taxed separately. But we find from the re-assessment order, the ld AO had accepted the claim of business loss of Rs 2,50,938/- accepting the fact that the assessee had carried on business activity and no disallowance was made to that effect. We find that

CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(3) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Nrs Ganesan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2027 & 2028/Chny/2017 Assessment Year : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals(P) Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-I(3), Chennai [Pan: Aaacc1356 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain of Rs 1,77,106/- returned by the assessee would get taxed separately. But we find from the re-assessment order, the ld AO had accepted the claim of business loss of Rs 2,50,938/- accepting the fact that the assessee had carried on business activity and no disallowance was made to that effect. We find that

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

145A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 19. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition of `14,58,83,105/- consequent to the block assessment in the assessee’s case. 20. Shri M. Swaminathan

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

capital in nature and not to be allowed as revenue expenditure by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem Ltd reported in 332 ITR 602. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is covered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

capital in nature and not to be allowed as revenue expenditure by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem Ltd reported in 332 ITR 602. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is covered

MALLADI DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

capital in nature and not to be allowed as revenue expenditure by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem Ltd reported in 332 ITR 602. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is covered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

capital in nature and not to be allowed as revenue expenditure by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem Ltd reported in 332 ITR 602. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is covered

MALLADI DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 879, 880, 881, 882, 1254, 1255 & 1256/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Malladi Drugs & Tax, V. Pharmaceuticals Limited, Corporate Circle -4(1), No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 1257, 1258 & 1259/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, No. 9, G.S.T. Road, Corporate Circle -4(1), St. Thomas Mount, Chennai. Chennai – 600 016. [Pan:Aaacm 5031A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Assessee By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha:

capital in nature and not to be allowed as revenue expenditure by specific legislative mandate vide section 28(va) as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Guffic Chem Ltd reported in 332 ITR 602. 5. The Ld. AR on the other hand supporting order of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the issue is covered