SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

156 ITR 509 took a view that this would not amount to transfer and, therefore, fell outside the scope of the capital gain. The rationale being that the consideration for the transfer of the personal asset was indeterminate, being the right which arose or accrued to the partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of profit

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

gain of Rs.93,63,20,420/- arising on business succession and credited to the capital account is exempt in terms of Section 47(xiv) of the Act. 58. The Ld.AR argued that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has disputed the genuineness of the BTA or its terms. However, the exemption u/s.47(xiv) of the Act was denied

PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

section 234A, 234B and 234C are charged as per law. Demand notice u/s 156 is enclosed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) – 3, Chennai. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed a detailed written submission in respect of delay in passing the order giving effect

M/S. BHAGGYAM BUILDERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

156 ITR 509. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the IT Act, 1961, where a partner of a firm makes over capital assets which are held by him to a firm as his contribution towards capital, there is a transfer of a capital asset within the terms of section 45 of the Act, because an exclusive interest

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

section 48.  In the absence of any legally admissible proof, the computation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a paper-book enclosing therein the return of income filed for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18, the scrutiny

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer 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

section (6), the remittance to non-resident was governed by the RBI guidelines. As per master circular no.4/2007-08 dated 02-07-2007, remittance was to be made based on any undertaking by the remitter and certificate by Chartered Accountant in the format prescribed vide CBDT Circular No.10/2022 dated 10-09-2002. Considering the same, the bank managing the assessee

RAMEYSH RAMDAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

capital gains and paid tax of Rs. 81,880/- after considering deduction under Section 54EC and Section 54 of the Act. 9 10.06.2015 Notice issued under Section 156

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

156 ITR 323 (SC)]. The Supreme Court in its Judgment Alom Extrusions had held that "When a proviso in a section is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the section workable, the proviso which supplies an obvious omission therein is required to be read retrospectively in operation, particularly to give effect to the section as a whole

KANCHAN SINGHVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2553/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Kanchan Singhvi, The Income Tax Officer, No. 156, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [Pan: Abhps2435F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 20.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15.The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Of ₹.18,69,390/-

156, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [PAN: ABHPS2435F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated