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

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 148A of the Act having not admittedly followed, the consequential issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and issuance of draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act and the final re-assessment order should be reckoned as bad in law. 5. The ITO, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin / Dispute Resolution Panel- 2 erred in adding back

SOCKALINGAM (HUF),MADURAI vs. ACIT, CIRRCLE - 1, MADURAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

Capital Gains from the sale of the property at Pallavaram, Chennai. The assessee had 1/6 share in the property. The total sale consideration was Rs.37.00 crores and the share of assessee was Rs.6,16,66,667/-. The LTCG was computed at Rs.1,47,99,538/- after reducing the commission paid of Rs.13.32 lacs and indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.68

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 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

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 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DHANUSHKODI HARIDEERTHAM,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXNL WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

capital gain, in\npursuance of the same, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued\non 19.04.2021. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15\non 13.10.2021. Since, the said case was reopened during the period\nbeginning on 01.04.2021 and ending with 30.06.2021, within the time\nextended by the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment

SUBRAMANIAM AVINASHILINGAM,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPUR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Subramaniam Avinashilingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 17, Valipalayam Lane, Valipalayam, Ward 1(2), Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aexpa2463E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

capital gains by denying the exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. AR Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate drew our attention to the order under section 148A

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

148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeunder section 148 of the Act, the consequential re-assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice

KALYANASUNDARAM BHARATH HARI,CHITTLAPAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX WARD 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gains u/s.50C of the Act to the extent of Rs.29.20 lakhs. Aggrieved against draft assessment order, assessee moved to Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee raised objection before DRP for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and DRP vide order dated 14.12.2022 upheld the action of the AO in reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act and approved

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

148A(d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to the prescription of law / procedure in relation there to and hence ought to have appreciated that in the absence of valid foundation for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the consequential re-assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According

PANCHATCHARAM,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

148A. 3. And that additional grounds raised before him, even though, has been reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A) at Page No.9 of his impugned order, but not adjudicated; the additional legal grounds reads as under: 1) In the order of seriatim of arrangement of section 147, sub clause (b) to Explanation 2, empowers the assessing officer to assess the income

KATHIRVELU SUBBARAYAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3854/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

148A(d) on 28.03.2024 and also reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the act. Since the assessee did not respond to the show cause notice the assessing officer concluded the assessment by adding a sum of Rs.50,00,000 being the entire sale consideration as long-term capital gain

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

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

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section