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

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

gain of Rs.93,63,20,420/- arising on\nbusiness succession and credited to the capital account is exempt in terms of\nSection 47(xiv) of the Act.\n58. The Ld.AR argued that neither the AO nor the Ld.CIT(A) has disputed the\ngenuineness of the BTA or its terms. However, the exemption u/s.47(xiv) of the\nAct was denied

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

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on sale of immovable property at T.Nagar,\nChennai\"\nThe assessment was completed and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of\nthe Act on 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the following\nadditions were made:\nSl.No. Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,08,400\nAdditions:\n1\nDisallowance of Rent payment\n18,00,000\n2\nDifference in cash

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on sale of immovable property at T.Nagar,\nChennai\"\nThe assessment was completed and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of\nthe Act on 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the following\nadditions were made:\nSl.No. Details\nAmount Rs.\n1\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,08,400\nAdditions:\n2\nDisallowance of Rent payment\n18,00,000\n3\nDifference

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

capital gains on the exchange of plots by applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 2,43,68,627/-. The A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 4,04,156

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

capital gain’ and deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. We noted that the assessment order in this case was framed by AO only on 20.12.2019 but it was under mistaken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order of some other assessee while issuing original assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, 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.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

gains chargeable under section 45", but right now we are confined to normal connotations of the expression 'income'. Howsoever liberal or narrow be the interpretation of expression 'income', it cannot alter character of a receipt, i.e. convert a capital receipt into revenue receipt or vice versa. The crucial distinction between capital and revenue cannot be blurred or nullified by even

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains of business or profession. The said provision deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non- monetary benefits arising from business or profession. Our above view is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner (404 ITR 1 – SC) wherein it is held as under

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

capital gains was offered to tax by assessee as evident from the submissions made and reproduced in the order. The Ld.PCIT has not given any findings as to why the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly is invalid as per the decisions cited above. b) Applicability of Rule

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on sale of immovable property at T.Nagar,\nChennai\"\nThe assessment was completed and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of\nthe Act on 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the following\nadditions were made:\nSl.No. Details\nIncome admitted in return of income\nAdditions:\nDisallowance of Rent payment\nDifference in cash flow statement treated\nas unexplained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

gains of business or profession. The\nsaid provision deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non-\nmonetary benefits arising from business or profession. Our above view is based on\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs.\nCommissioner (404 ITR 1 – SC) wherein it is held as under

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

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

156 taxmann.com 178\n2\n03.05.2024\nHexaware Technologies Ltd.\nV.\nAssistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax - High Court of Bombay\n464 ITR 430\n3\n20.05.2024\nRam Narayan Sah v. Union of India - High Court of\nGauhati - 163 taxmann.com 478\n4\n02.07.2024\nSushila Sureshbabu Malge v. Income-tax Officer\nHigh Court of Bombay -164 taxmann.com 633\n5\n19.07.2024\nJatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 143(3) or under section 147 of the Act and such concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, concluded assessment is being sought to be reopened beyond four years, ITA No.2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others 2587/CHNY/2024 & 22 others (AYs 2012 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri