ACIT (LTU), CHENNAI vs. TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3299/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Tamilnadu Petroproducts Income Tax, V. Limited Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Post Box No. 9, Manali Express Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Highway, Wanaparthy Block, Manali, Chennai – 600 068. No. 121, M.G. Road, [Pan: Aaact-1295-M] Chennai – 600 034. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023

270/- closing stock 5. Addition on long term capital 2,07,44,307/- 6,05,22,819/- gains Assessed Income 6,05,22,819/- 3. The assessee challenged these additions before the ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal raising the following grounds of appeal: :-3-: ITA. No: 3299/Chny/2019 1. The order

CHERUKURI BAPUJI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2782/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

section 54 and increased the taxable capital gains by Rs.22,90,840 instead of Rs.21,82,270/- 2. Without prejudice

DHANABALAN SELVAMUTHU KUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

270/-.\n3. Aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before\nthe learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore. The Ld.CIT(A),\nvide order dated 30.12.2015, deleted the additions made towards unexplained\nsource for cash deposits in the bank accounts and suppression of capital gains.\nHowever, the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the additions made towards unexplained\ninvestment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCW 11(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI ELUMALAI MUTHUKUMARAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.949/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Elumalai Muthukumaran, Non Corporate Ward 11(1), No. 29, Ramasamy Street, Chennai. Mannady, Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aajpm9856B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 08.11.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 22.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1) The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Contrary Of Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Profit On Sale Of Property Under The Head 'Capital Gains’. 2.1) The Ld Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Reopening Of Assessment Is Not Bad In Law, Since Section 147 Of The It Act Clearly Says That If The Assessing Officer

capital gains’. 2.1) The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reopening of assessment is not bad in law, since section 147 of the IT Act clearly says that if the Assessing Officer 2 I.T.A. No.949/Chny/20 has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO can assess or re-assess the assessment

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. If the said compensation amounts are received in relation to agricultural property, then by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act, the amounts would stand excluded from the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the I.T. Act. As for the interest amounts received

RAMSAMY PONGIANNA GOUNDER DESAMANI,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITD, WARD 2, , TIRUCHENGODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

270/- as deemed dividend\nu/s.2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of the assessee. There is no dispute\nregarding the fact that the assessee is holding 23.69% of the shares in\nM/s.Cheran Spinners Limited (the lending company) and 17.28% of the shares\nin M/s.Best Cheran Spintex India Limited (the borrowing company). The\nprovisions of section

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

270 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off is available to all debts irrespective of their classification as rural or urban advances. 6.3.20 In light of the above discussions, judicial precedents, and the CBDT Circular/Instructions, the undersigned is of the considered view that

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

270 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the benefit of deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off is available to all debts irrespective of their classification as rural or urban advances. 6.3.20 In light of the above discussions, judicial precedents, and the CBDT Circular/Instructions, the undersigned is of the considered view that

RAMASAMY DINESH,GOBICHETTIPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, ERODE

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

capital gain arising from\nthe sale was duly included in the return of income. It was further\nsubmitted that the cash received on sale was kept at home and\ndeposited in bank after demonetization was announced. The Ld. AR\nargued that there was no restriction in law against retaining cash for a\nfew months. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. pleaded that

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

gains, or Rs. 10,000, whichever is less. However section 80JJA of Income tax Act is omitted by the Finance Act 1983, the condition on which deduction had been denied is still prevailing and relevant to the facts of the case. V) However assessee has claimed vide letter filed on 23.12.2019 that the company is dealing in button mushroom only

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

gains, or Rs. 10,000, whichever is less. However section 80JJA of Income tax Act is omitted by the Finance Act 1983, the condition on which deduction had been denied is still prevailing and relevant to the facts of the case. V) However assessee has claimed vide letter filed on 23.12.2019 that the company is dealing in button mushroom only

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and department are\nallowed or dismissed as per chart below

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

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

270 of the Act calling upon the assessee-Education-Trust ‘as to why’ penalty for underreporting/misreporting of income should not be imposed u/s.270A of the Act and the assessee objected to levy of penalty by pointing out, inter alia, that since the AO has accepted the returned income filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s.153A

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

270 of the Act calling upon the assessee-Education-Trust ‘as to why’ penalty for underreporting/misreporting of income should not be imposed u/s.270A of the Act and the assessee objected to levy of penalty by pointing out, inter alia, that since the AO has accepted the returned income filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice u/s.153A

PALLAVA TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED ,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITO , NFAC , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.862/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018 M/S. Pallava Textiles Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 27-C, Sankari Bye Pass Road, National Faceless Assessment Pallipalayam – 638 006, Centre [Nafac], Delhi. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcp9105F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 05.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-2018 In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

270 on 18/09/2021 was dismissed. 3) The appeal against the impugned order, ought to have been filed on or before 03.09.2022, is now filed on 21/10/2022 with a delay of 48 days. 4) The delay was due to technical glitches in the income tax portal in downloading the order u/s. 250. 5) That we do not stand to gain

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

270, it has been held that the objective of M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd. :: 11 :: Form 3CL is limited to the forwarding of the intimation of the approval of the unit; that Form No. 3CL is a mere report for intimation of approval of R & D facility. In this regard, as rightly pointed out, such aspect stands confirmed by sub- rule

TMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The Acit, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [Pan: Aaact 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

270 Taxman 04. According to the Ld.AR, in the present case, the AO M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd :: 4 :: in order to reopen the scrutiny assessment dated 17.03.2013 [after four years], has cited non-consideration of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.02.2012 in the case of M/s.Catholic Syrian Bank in Civil Appeal No.1143/2011 as reported

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee are\ndecided as under:-\n\n| ITA Nos\n| Assessment\nYear\nResult\n| IT(TP)A No

gains of business or profession within the\npurview of section 28 to 41 of the Act. The definitions contain therein\nare important since the same are not available in any other part of the\nAct.\nThus, section 43(3) supra provides that \"plant” includes \"books”.\nWe have also noted that Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case