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

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

LATE ABDULLAH ABDULMAJEED, REP. BY L/H,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

Capital Gains' as provided under section 48 and this is the only\nmanner of understanding the words, 'income chargeable to tax under\nsection 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act.\n19. The contention of the Revenue that under section 149 what is required\nto be taken note of, is the 'income that has escaped assessment' being\nthe entirety of sale consideration

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Gains of Business or Profession”, “Income from Other Sources\",\nincluding interest income. The assessee maintains regular books of account\nwhich are duly audited u/s.44AB of the Act, and the same have consistently\naccepted the trading results, including the Gross Profit (“GP”) in all prior years\nby the revenue.\n4. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted

ALBERT SHEELA,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Capital Gains after deduction of Rs.31,00,000/- u/s.54 of the Act and amount of Rs.21,600/- as Contract receipt and total amount of Rs.34,39,100/- treated as assessed income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the same was confirmed by the ld.CIT

NAVASAKTHI TOWNSHIPS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, CUDDALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Capital Gain and Rs.3.00,000/- (10% of the TDS payment of Rs.30,00,000/-) treated as business income of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by confirming the order

MERCY CHANDIRA,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and concluded the assessment by arriving total income of Rs.1,56,79,170/- on 18.07.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the assessee gets a relief of Rs.16,923/- out of the addition of Rs.1,53,93,400/- and the addition

VELLAISAMY NATARAJAN,PUDHUKURICHI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain being the difference between sale consideration of Rs.3.00 crores and which has been purchased for Rs.1.50 Crores (supra) on 24.11.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in liminie without condoning the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal

ARAVINDHAN BHARATHI,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain and (b) Rs.2,94,000/- as the income of the assessee, which was claimed by the assessee as agricultural income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the same and against which, the assessee had preferred the present appeal. :-3-: ITA. No:2014 /Chny/2025 6. The Ld. AR for the assessee referred

RAJENDRAA SAKUNTHALA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains. Accordingly, the assessment was completed u/s.147 of the Act vide order dated 24.03.2023, assessing the total income at Rs.5,23,16,180/-. Aggrieved by the said assessment order u/s.147 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions by passing an order dated 19.02.2025. Aggrieved

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Gains of Business or Profession”, “Income from Other Sources”,\nincluding interest income. The assessee maintains regular books of account\nwhich are duly audited u/s.44AB of the Act, and the same have consistently\naccepted the trading results, including the Gross Profit (“GP”) in all prior years\nby the revenue.\n4. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Act was conducted

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Gains of Business or Profession”, “Income from Other Sources”, :-3-: ITA. Nos:1859, 1860 & 1865/Chny/2025 including interest income. The assessee maintains regular books of account which are duly audited u/s.44AB of the Act, and the same have consistently accepted the trading results, including the Gross Profit (“GP”) in all prior years by the revenue. 4. A search and seizure action

ARAVINDAN RENGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION),, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3297/Chny/2025 & S.A No.115/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Aravindan Rengasamy, The Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O. Sundaram & Narayanan, Vs. Tax (International Taxation), Chartered Accountants, Madurai. 18 Balaiah Avenune, Luz Churchroad, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Apupr 6827B

151A r.w. Notification No.S.O. 1466E dt. 29.03.2022. b) 148A(b) notice dt. 06.03.2023 is invalid since admittedly only less than 7 days (namely up to 11.03.2023) was given to the assessee to reply, which is opposed to the provisions of section 148A(b). c) Provisions of section 127 r.w.s. 129 are not complied with since the 148 notice

DURAISAMY RAJESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:673/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Duraiswamy Rajeswari, Ito, 17, Lakshmanan Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 3(1), 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Afipr-0877-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Mathangi, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

151A of the Act. 4. Without prejudice, the Impugned Penalty is excessive and unfair, as the term “each such failure” must not be associated with each notice of the same species, but restricted to lack of response towards notice(s) issued under different provisions of the Income Tax Act, contemplating different compliances during assessment, given that there is no maximum