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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023] which we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee before us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

149 lTD 0728, relying on Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) (supra) at Para 23 held; 23. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties and plethora of decisions relied upon by them in the course of hearing before us. The question before us relates

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

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain ITA No. 264/Mds/2016. :- 9 -: arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain’’. The contention of the ld. Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Capital Gain on Shares Sales Rs.229,96,19,403/- Less: Purchases Rs.189,63,15,388/- Rs.40,33,04,015/- Income from other sources Rs. 3,80,226/- Rs.40,36,84,241/- Less: Deduction u/s 80C Rs. 70,000/- Assessed Total Income Rs.40,36,14,241/- The above computation is not in dispute. The subject matter of appeal is computation

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 out of the above said transactions and provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to sec.147 are applicable to facts of this case and a notice u/s.148 was issued on 19-03-2021 requiring the assessee to file the return in response to section 148. The notice was duly complied and a return was submitted

VIVEK RAMASWAMY PUTHUCODE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3731/Chny/2025 िनधा&रण वष& /Assessment Year: 2015-16

capital gains to the tune of Rs.81,44,619/-. On further appeal, the CIT(A) gave partial relief to the assessee by directing the AO to verify the amount invested by the assessee in the new asset and allow deduction u/s.54. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee raised

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

149 of the Act and hence liable to quashed as bad in law. i) It is to be noted that the Order of the Hon’ble DRP did not so comment on the validity of re-opening of the assessment. j) The Hon’ble DRP erred to understand that the new information, basis of which the AO relied

CHAKRAWARTI BAFNA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD I(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1945 & 1946/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010

Section 50C of the Act. The above issue is common in both the appeals of the Assessee and hence these two appeals were heard together and as the facts and circumstances are also identical, these two appeals are clubbed and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. As the facts being identical in both

CHAKRAWARTI BAFNA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD I(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1945 & 1946/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010

Section 50C of the Act. The above issue is common in both the appeals of the Assessee and hence these two appeals were heard together and as the facts and circumstances are also identical, these two appeals are clubbed and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. As the facts being identical in both

YOUVAN COSMECEUTICALS & CONSULTANCY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

149 is bad in law and deserved to be quashed. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in holding that amount of Rs.49,42,821 / - would be taxable as short term capital gain and there will be no cost of acquisition being bonus units. 3.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the above investment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills