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. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 :-9-: ITA. No:561/Chny/2025 (28A), the provisions

VEERASWAMY JOTHEESWARAN,TIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVALLUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K

Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 (28A), the provisions of Section 56

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

2\n35,10,69,000\n(B) Upcoming Projects:\n97,43,22,000\n(i) The Royal Castle\n31,24,40,000\nCommercial Land (255/1a1)\n(ii) The Royal Castle\n14,32,74,000\nCommercial Land\n(262/lala)\n(iii) Pazhanthandalam\n6,41,68,000\nProject Site (144/1)\n(iv) Land at\n5,56,88,000\nPazhanthandalam 63/1

MALINI,THIRUNINDRAVUR vs. ACIT, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.:2362/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Malini, The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Ganapathy Puram, Near Vs. Income Tax, Ragvendra Nagar, Periyapalayam Non Corporate Circle 22(1), (Tbm), Road, Thiruninravur 602 024, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ajspm-9167-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-: 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 25.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 17 Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing The Ld. Ar & Ld. Dr, We Find That The Reasons Explained By The Assessee Are Bonafide & Therefore, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) and section 145A(b) of the Act. So far as addition made towards unsecured loan is concerned, the ld. CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee, on that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal before the ITAT. 6. On being aggrieved against confirmation of the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

Section 54F of the Act invalid and baseless. 6.. For the aforesaid grounds and for other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing, the order of CIT(A) may be quashed and justice be rendered.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 28.10.2018 declaring total income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

56 ITR 198) and the other in Ellerman Lines Limited v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 913] that circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

56 ITR 198) and the other in Ellerman Lines Limited v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 913] that circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

56 ITR 198) and the other in Ellerman Lines Limited v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 913] that circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

56 ITR 198) and the other in Ellerman Lines Limited v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 913] that circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.942, 943, 944, 945 & 953/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shriram Chits Private Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), 3-6-478, Iii Floor, Anand Estates, Chennai -600 034. Opp. Indian Bank, Liberty Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad 500 029. [Pan:Aafcs44916D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Four Appeals In Ita Nos. 942 To 945/Chny/2023 Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2023 Relevant The Assessment Years 2015-16, 20-17-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Common Grounds Raised In The Appeals Of The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of I.T. (Appeals) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

56 ITR 198) and the other in Ellerman Lines Limited v. CIT [(1971) 82 ITR 913] that circulars issued by the CBDT under Section 119 of the Act are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act.” 6.6 (vi) The Hon’ble Supreme Court

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order of the first appeal.\n\n27. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the present appeal before us, by raising grounds of appeal challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A of the Act as well as on merits

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

capital gain reported by the assessee of Rs.1,18,110/- was not modified and after set-off of the same against LTCG, the taxable LTCG was determined at Rs.79,11,230/- vii. During the course of the assessment proceedings, consequent to the enhancement in arriving at the LTCG, the assessee had submitted that even subsequent to the enhancement, the taxable

LOTUS FOOTWEAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED-INDIA BRANCH,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

viii. In order to deny the benefit the new undertaking must be formed by reconstruction of the old unit which can take place only when the assets of more than 20% value of new unit are transferred to the new unit from the old unit." 18. The ld.AR submitted that in the case of assessee, all the above conditions have

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned\norder of the first appeal.\n25. The assessee aggrieved with the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) had filed the\npresent appeal before us, by raising grounds of appeal challenging the validity\nof the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153A of the Act as well as on merits.\n26. Since

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

gain of business’ does not arise. It is also verified, the allowance of bad debts of Rs.55,92,38,563/- u/s 36(1)(vii) is not in order and the loss of Rs.26,14,02,950/- determined in the scrutiny assessment is to be disallowed.” Accordingly, the AO framed reassessment despite the fact that the assessee has raised objection

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

gain of business’ does not arise. It is also verified, the allowance of bad debts of Rs.55,92,38,563/- u/s 36(1)(vii) is not in order and the loss of Rs.26,14,02,950/- determined in the scrutiny assessment is to be disallowed.” Accordingly, the AO framed reassessment despite the fact that the assessee has raised objection

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

gain of business’ does not arise. It is also verified, the allowance of bad debts of Rs.55,92,38,563/- u/s 36(1)(vii) is not in order and the loss of Rs.26,14,02,950/- determined in the scrutiny assessment is to be disallowed.” Accordingly, the AO framed reassessment despite the fact that the assessee has raised objection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

gains which would accrue to CIFCL. In fact, CIFCL shall be obligated to pay a fixed premium to the bank for undertaking the hedging irrespective of the actual foreign exchange fluctuation. Further, the forward contracts entered by the assessee were settled by way of actual delivery, implying that the transactions are bona fide and hence cannot be construed