MEERA HUSSAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.501/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Meera Hussain Pr. Cit बनाम/ 19, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-8. Vs. Mannady,Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahpm-9324-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(Ca) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assail The Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 (Pr. Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2021 In The Matter An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 14-11-2017. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8, Passed U/S.263, With Reference No.: Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/ 1031753147(1), Dated 25.03.2021, Is Against The Facts Of The Case Weight Of Evidence On Record & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons:-

263. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Hon'ble PCIT, Chennai-8 is against the provisions of the Act as the original Order cannot be treated as erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of revenue and is completely unsustainable in law.” 2. The Registry has noted delay of 380 days in the appeal, the condonation

SENTHILMURUGAN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2,, MADURAI

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.768/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Senthil Murugan Jewellers Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, 107 & 108, South Income Tax, Avani Moola Street, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 2, [Pan:Aajcs8546F] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 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, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 by the Assessing Officer. 7. That during the course of discussions, Shri T. Banusekar, Chartered Accountant enquired about the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.263 and that whether any appeal was filed against the said order to which we informed Shri T. Banusekar, Chartered Accountant that we were not aware that

PADMAVATHY REALTY AND PROMOTERS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 195/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Padmavathy Realty & The Principal Commissioner Of Promoters P Ltd V. Chennai-4, 30, Ii Street, Balaji Nagar, Chennai. Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Aaccd-0782-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2023

condone delay in appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of revision u/s 263

KAB STEEL INDUSTRIES,COIMBATORE vs. THE ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay of 33 days which is related to Covid-19 pandemic and thus, admit it for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the partnership firm which is in the business of manufacture of steel bars. It filed its return of income on 17.10.2016 reporting the total income

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

NEW CARRYING CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-12(1)I/C, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - 8, Chennai (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred as PCIT-8) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is contrary and bad in law, to the facts

LATE P.S.ULAGARAKSHAGAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT-3, 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.249/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late P.S. Ulagarakshagan Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Ambika U, L/H Of Ulagarakshagan, Income Tax-3, No. 4, Anushya Street, Nagarjuna Chennai – 34. Nagar, 2Nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaipu8947Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – 3, Chennai Dated 11.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay 2 I.T.A. No.249/Chny/21 in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee initially raised the following grounds: 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case by invoking Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TRUHOME FINANCE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED),CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 3(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revision order issued u/s. 263 of\nthe Act on 31.03.2024 by the Principal Commissioner of Income-\ntax, Chennai-3 [LD.PCIT], for the Assessment Year 2018-19.\n2. At the outset, there is a delay of 290 days in filing the present\nappeal. The Assessee has submitted a detailed affidavit explaining\nthe reasons for the delay, stating that there

SHRI C. THANGARAJ,,TIRUPUR vs. PCIT-3, , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

revision u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Coimbatore for the reason that the guideline value of the agricultural lands were not adopted by the assessing officer and has set aside the assessment order with the direction to redo the assessment as per law considering the facts of the case. The above order of Principal Commissioner

VINOD KUMAR KUNDANMAL ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

TARUN KUMAR KUNDANMALJI JAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

TARUN KUNDANMAL HUF,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

VINOD KUMAR KUNDANMALJI JAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

C.JEBAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 11(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.157/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Mr.C.Jebamani, The Income Tax Officer, 62/1, Peters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-11(4), Royapettah, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Acnpj 6400 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T.Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.M.Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of import and sale of used printing and paper cutting machines filed his return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 23.03.2017 admitting total income

SARAVANA STOCKS INVESTMENTS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1852 & 2298/Chny/2018 & िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Saravana Stocks – V. The Dcit / Acit, Investments (P) Ltd., Company Circle-Vi(1), New No.11, Old No.5, Chennai-34. Bishop Wallers Avenue (West), Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaics 7328 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

u/s 35D of the Act. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 1526 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, a petition for condonation of delay along