V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

172 (SC) As already observed, M/s PPL was liable to pay interest on the loans taken from various financial institutions. The Appellant in the capacity of Managing Director was under no legal obligation to discharge the liabilities of interest belonging to M/s PPL even though he was its promoter. It is in this context the principles enunciated by the Apex

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the Proprietor of M/s. A.K.Exports (hereinafter ‘AKE’), who is engaged in the business of trading of gold jewellery and bullion through his business unit and derives salary from M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter ‘LJM’). A survey operation u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

S.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 1 (TIRUVALLUR), KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1905/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. S. Praveen Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.33/3, Ground Floor, Ward I, (Tiruvallur), Veerappan Street, Kancheepuram. Sowcarpet, Chennai 600 001. [Pan Aaipp 9343H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains with necessary evidences. There was no addition whatsoever made for the reason cited in the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. In our opinion, once the alleged escaped of income, is found not to be any escapement at all, then an addition made for items other than on which the reopening was attempted would not stand

M/S. P.P. ENTERPRISES,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

3. Assessee’s appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not meet with any success. What was held by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), at para 5.1 of his order is reproduced hereunder:- ‘’5.1. Section 54F stipulates that the assessee should either utilize the sale proceeds to acquire a residential property or to construct a residential

S.A.BHIMARAJA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3414/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 147 of the Act and hence, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The assessment for the impugned assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.12.2011 and determined total income of Rs.5,36,23,782/- by assessing profit arising out of sale of lands at Padur as ‘income from business’ as against admission

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(20, CHENNAI vs. RAMA NARAYANAN (LATE), L/H SHRINARAYANAN RAMASWAMY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3080/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner – V. Mr.Rama Narayanan (Late) Of Income Tax, L/H Mr.Narayanan- Central Circle-2(2), Ramasamy, Chennai. No.14/19, Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Achpr 5912 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3 10.08.2011 4801/2011 Rs.1,00,00,000/- Rs.40,75,465/- (prop cost for 1 acre) As per the provisions of Sec 2(14)(iii) only the following agricultural lands situated in any of the following areas is considered as a capital asset : (a) In any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality or a Cantonment Board

SESHANK MAHADEV,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU

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.2274/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2024-25 Seshank Mahadev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ak 27, Tas Enclave, E2, Golden King Corporate Ward 3(1), Villa Apartments, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 040. [Pan:Olwps5532Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Varadharajan, F/O Of Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.06.2025 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Indore For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. At The Outset, We Note That The Cpc Denied The Rebate Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 87A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Vide Intimation Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Act Dated 12.11.2024. Against The Intimation Order, The Assessee Preferred An 2

gain taxable under section 111A of the Act, which is evident from page 3 of the impugned order. 5. The next issue is with regard to long term capital on equity shares/ units of equity-oriented fund/units of business trust, where, the assessee has shown income of ₹.91,172

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI SAILENDRA KUMAR KETHINENI,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & C.O. No. 104/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No. 2263/Chny/2019] The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Sailendra Kumar Kethineni, Income Tax Vs. No. 61, Greenways Road, R.A. Puram, Non Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aafpk8983P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 10.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made In Respect Of Employees Contribution Towards Pf/Esi & Treating The Sale Of Land In Sholinganallur As Capital Asset On The Basis Of Book Entry Without Appreciating That Book Entries Are Not Determinative Of Income Of Assessee.

capital gain and another as business income. It was further submission that mere entries in the books are not determinative of income of the assessee in view of the decisions in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1(SC) & Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT 227 ITR 172 (SC). We find force

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, , COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the appeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In respect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the appeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has been duly enclosed with Form No. 36. Further, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the \nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In \nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the \nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has \nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

P.P. FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the \nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In \nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the \nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has \nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36. \nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the \nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In \nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the \nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has \nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36. \nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search