SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

capital gain. Ground No.8 is related to interest u/s 234A/B/C. Ground No.9 is related to penalty levied. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is disposed of in the subsequent paragraphs. 6.2 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. Relevant portion of submission is reproduced below: 3. The following case laws are relied upon where in it has been held

SENTHIL KUMAR (HUF),TUTICORIN CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, , TUTICORIN CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 653/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Senthil Kumar (Huf) Ito, 34B/4, Briyant Nagar, V. Ward-4, 4Th Street Middle, Tuticorin. Bryant Nagar, Tuticorin – 628 008 . [Pan: Abahs-1591-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

section 50C(2) and 54F of the Act, rejected arguments of the assessee and sustained additions made towards computation of capital gains by allowing proportionate deduction u/s. 54F of :-6-: ITA. No: 653/Chny/2023 the Act by considering full value of consideration received from transfer of property and amount invested for purchase of new residential house property. Aggrieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MULLIAMBAL RATHNASAMY PITCHAKANNU ERAAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

section 159 of the Act. 7. With regard to mention of name of the deceased assessee in the cause title makes the impugned order null and void, the ld. AR brought to our notice the practical aspect of adjudication process stating that the cause title of the proceeding is automatically generated based on system data linked

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds, irrespective of whether the income from the bonds have been declared by the bond-holder on accrual basis from year

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds, irrespective of whether the income from the bonds have been declared by the bond-holder on accrual basis from year

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 193 of the Income Tax Act. The subsequent Circular No.4/2004 dated 13.05.2004 clarified that the tax would be deducted at source u/s 193 or Sec.195, as the case may be, only at the time of redemption of such bonds, irrespective of whether the income from the bonds have been declared by the bond-holder on accrual basis from year

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\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

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\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

193) wherein it was held that, the deduction for bad debts is allowable upon write-off in relevant year, without necessitating justification that debt has actually gone bad. The relevant portion of the decision is as follows:- “22. The Supreme Court in TRF Ltd (supra), has held that post amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, with effect

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

193) wherein it was held that, the deduction for bad debts is allowable upon write-off in relevant year, without necessitating justification that debt has actually gone bad. The relevant portion of the decision is as follows:- “22. The Supreme Court in TRF Ltd (supra), has held that post amendment to Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, with effect

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

capital, which is borrowed “for the purpose of business”. He argued that in the present case, the said borrowings were availed for the purpose of business and deduction of interest amount must be made from profits and gains of business. 9. The ld. DR Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT submits that the ld. PCIT rightly held that the order

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense. Le, book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise”. 10. Accordingly, the excess of income over

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.

Sections 147/148 of the Act are satisfied. It is the appellant's case that the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied inasmuch as in the absence of the Assessing Officer having the original return of income available it would not be possible for him to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This issue of jurisdiction

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

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\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

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

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which