ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. IL AND FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital account or on revenue account\nirrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the\ntransaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue\nreceipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case\nfor any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage.\nAccordingly, all the grounds

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

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

282 11. 20.01.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 285 12. 09.02.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section 142(1) of the 287 Act dated 20.01.2022 13. - Annual report for Assessment Year: 2020 – 21 293 14. - Details of ICDS compliance 456 15. - Details of creditors 461 16. - Details of borrowings 466 17. - Details

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

capital gains on\nsale of property at Abhiramapuram in Paragraph 5.1 without assigning proper\nreasons and justification.\n7) The NFAC failed to appreciate that in any event, the entire re-computation of\nLTCG on various facets was wrong, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on\nfacts and in law.\n8) The Cross Objector/Assessee craves leave to file additional grounds

M/S. R.K. INVESTMENTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

1. The Order of Principal Commissioner of lncome tax is contrary to law facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction in as much as the very issue whether the land transferred was agricultural land subject matter of examination and investigation at the time of regular assessment under section 143(3) as well

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

282 (SC). The Id. Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no mentioning\nof the description about the nature of those receipts in those seized materials and it\nis the allegation of the investigation department that it is purportedly capitation\nfees. The Id. Counsel for the assessee argued that it is not a case of 'lack of\ninquiry', since

OLYMPIA TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 1, Sidco Income Tax, Chennai-4, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aabco8102F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -4, Chennai, Dated 25.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

capital gain. Hence the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent if such amalgamation has not taken place. 7 I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/22 Accordingly, as per the 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the aggregate 15. deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.GIMPEX LIMITED , CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

M/S GIMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

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

282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

gains of business or profession\".\nFurther, section 56 of the Income-tax Act has also been amended to\nprovide that any compensation received or receivable by any person,\nwhether in the nature of revenue or capital, in connection with the\ntermination or the modification of the terms and conditions of any contract\nrelating to his employment shall be taxable under

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

282 ITR 149 138 17 A. Balakrishnan HC-Karnataka 290 ITR 227 141 18 Daljit Singh Pyare Lal & HC-P & H 269 ITR 19 146 Co. 19 Karnataka State Co- HC-Karnataka 130 taxmann.com 114 149 operative Apex Bank Ltd. 20 C. Kishan Rao & Co. ITAT 3 ITD 474 155 Hyderabad The ld.Counsel further submitted that the issue which

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.

282 (SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no mentioning of the description about the nature of those receipts in those seized materials and it is the allegation of the investigation department that it is purportedly capitation fees. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that it is not a case of ‘lack of inquiry’, since

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.

282 (SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that there is no mentioning of the description about the nature of those receipts in those seized materials and it is the allegation of the investigation department that it is purportedly capitation fees. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that it is not a case of ‘lack of inquiry’, since

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, 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.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

gain on extinguishment of liability and other issues during assessment proceedings, but fail to carry out required enquiries he ought to have been carried out in light of explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, which rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. :-27-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 17. The provisions of section

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

282 (SC) and also in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), submits, while referring to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and vehemently argues that if one of the two conditions above is absent, i.e., (i) if the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous, but, it is not prejudicial in the interest

RAJKUMAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4, CHENAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference