ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

delay in filing the appeals by the revenue and the subsequent condonation.", "held": "The Tribunal held that share premium is a capital receipt and not income. The Assessing Officer's attempt to tax it under Section 56

PREETI MADHOK,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW -2 (5),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.752/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs.Preeti Madhok, V. The Income Tax Officer, ‘G’ Block, Flat No.1504, Non-Corporate Ward-2(5), Metrozone (Next To Vr Mall), Chennai. No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Bcopm 7655 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that without prejudice to the above, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that no addition can be made in the hands of the appellant since the entire consideration for the property purchased during the impugned assessment year was paid

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

DCIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ARCHEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

condone delay in filing both these appeal filed by the Revenue. ITA No. 1998/Chny/2019 (A.Y.2014-15): 5. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib

JCI (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ARCHEAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

condone delay in filing both these appeal filed by the Revenue. ITA No. 1998/Chny/2019 (A.Y.2014-15): 5. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 56(2)(viib

STAR HEALTH INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO,CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

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.357/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Star Health Investments Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited (Dissolved), Income Tax-3, Room No. 410, Main No. 10 & 11, 4Th Floor, Chennai Citi Building, Ivth Floor, 121, Mahatma Centre, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aajcs6207K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri V. Padmanabhan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2023 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 31.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. For that the revision order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 3, Chennai under section 263 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, is without jurisdiction, barred by limitation and is opposed

JAGANNATHAN BASKAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , HOSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, when the time allowed for the same is reckoned from the original date of the intimation order under Section 143(1) being 27 March 2019. The learned JCIT(A) did not admit the appeal for adjudication that there was no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Assessee further challenged the order

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.

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The only effective ground raised in the appeal is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition of ₹.97,44,420/- being 50% of the receipt of interest on enhanced compensation made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

NICHAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,PERUNDURAI vs. ADIT-CPC BENGALURU, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Nichampalayam Primary Agricultural- The Ito, Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ward-2(1), 56, Odamedu,Thingalur, Erode. Perundurai-638 055. [Pan: Aaban 2881 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56, Odamedu,Thingalur, Erode. Perundurai-638 055. [PAN: AABAN 2881 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 22.05.2024 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 05.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY

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:

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. C. Thangaraj :: 3 :: 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, partner in firms and prop: of Key Tex Hosieries, filed his return of income on 26.05.2015 admitting an income of ₹.6,40,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

THIDUVIL BALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NONCORP, WARD 4(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.3, New No. 4, V. Income-Tax, 5Th Street, 4Th Cross, Central Circle -2(2), Seetharam Nagar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 112. [Pan: Afmpb-5184-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) confirming the additions to the extent of 10,79,630 is erroneous, contrary to law and Sustainable to the facts of the case

SMT. S. SOUNDARAM (INDIVIDUAL),NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-4,, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is allowed and the appeal for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.685 & 686/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Smt. S. Soundaram (Indl.), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 9, Kamarajar Nagar, Ward 4, Namakkal. Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 637 408. [Pan: Ahrps2830C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Both Dated 20.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has filed her return of income without disclosing purchase of immovable property of ₹.1,18,80,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section

SMT. S. SOUNDARAM (INDIVIDUAL),NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-4,, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is allowed and the appeal for the assessment year 2014-

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.685 & 686/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Smt. S. Soundaram (Indl.), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 9, Kamarajar Nagar, Ward 4, Namakkal. Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu 637 408. [Pan: Ahrps2830C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Salem, Both Dated 20.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has filed her return of income without disclosing purchase of immovable property of ₹.1,18,80,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

condonation of delay Petition u/s 119(2)(b) to treat the return as filed u/s 139(1). The appellant has filed a petition u/s 119(2)(b) dated 26.12.2023 which is still pending before the Central board of Direct Taxes. Concept of Members and Deduction u/s 80P. 5) The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Appellant

THE ERODE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMP CO-OP T& C LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 1 (1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

condonation of delay Petition u/s 119(2)(b) to treat the return as filed u/s 139(1). The appellant has filed a petition u/s 119(2)(b) dated 26.12.2023 which is still pending before the Central board of Direct Taxes. Concept of Members and Deduction u/s 80P. 5) The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the Appellant

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated penalty

PRINCE LOGISTICS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED KANCHIPURAM,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 5(2). CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

56,188/-. According to the Ld.AR, the assessee came to know about the assessment order at the fag end of year 2023, when recovery steps were initiated by the AO, whereby delay of ‘582’ days had occurred; and immediately appeals were filed on 02.12.2023 against the assessment order on 30.03.2022 for both the years. Similarly, the AO had initiated penalty