UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

263\nof the Act for the reason that the assessment order passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 has\nbeen found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the\nassessment was made without making enquiry and allowed relief to the\nassessee. She submits that section 44 of the Act deals with

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

263 of the Act, the assessee preferred present appeal before this Tribunal. 10. The ld. AR Shri S. Sundararaman, CA submits that there is no prohibition either in section 44 of the Act or in Rule 5 of the First Schedule to deny deduction under section 10(38) of the Act to insurance companies. The intention behind insertion of Rule

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

263\nof the Act for the reason that the assessment order passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 has\nbeen found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the\nassessment was made without making enquiry and allowed relief to the\nassessee. She submits that section 44 of the Act deals with

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

263\nof the Act for the reason that the assessment order passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 has\nbeen found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the\nassessment was made without making enquiry and allowed relief to the\nassessee. She submits that section 44 of the Act deals with

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

263\nof the Act for the reason that the assessment order passed by the\nAssessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2016 has\nbeen found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the\nassessment was made without making enquiry and allowed relief to the\nassessee. She submits that section 44 of the Act deals with

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains, did not give a clear finding as to whether the building was taxed at the appropriate rates or not. From the table mentioned in para.4, it is clear that provisions of section SOC of the Act ought to have been invoked, which the AO had carried out correctly, but the impugned assessment order is :-6-: ITA. No:1490/Chny/2023

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. In the decided case, the In the decided case, the assessee had originally filed the return of income disclosing long term lly filed the return of income disclosing long term lly filed the return of income disclosing long term capital gain

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. In the decided case, the In the decided case, the assessee had originally filed the return of income disclosing long term lly filed the return of income disclosing long term lly filed the return of income disclosing long term capital gain

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute his view with that of the view taken by the Ld. AO after detailed inquiry and verification. III. Computation of the eligible business profits for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act ITA No.1598 /Chny/2024 3.1. The Ld. PCIT, in the facts and circumstances of the case

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

gains. The Assessing Officer, consequent to the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act dated 23.03.2005 passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 31.03.2006 and the capital

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

capital gains and in the case of self-generated good will it is not possible to determine the same. The third reason for holding that the good will generated in a newly commenced business cannot be described as an 'asset' within the terms of section 45 of the Act was that it is impossible to determine its cost of acquisition

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the\nassessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while\nallowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that\nby itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer\nhad not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore\nlaying down the principle that the Assessing Officer

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the assessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while allowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that by itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer