ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

VII is not applicable as it deals with Government grants only, but not inclusive of the duty credit scrips under MEIS, which are rewards. We hold that the benefit under Foreign Trade Policy-2015 received being MEIS scrips cannot fall within the meaning of cash assistance under section 28(iiib) of the Act. We hold the sums received

CHANDRASEKARAN VALARMATHI,TOWN HOUSE, COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii). 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 6 days in ITA No.652/Chny/2022, the condonation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. RAJASEKARAN VASANTHAMALLI, TOWN HALL, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act whereas there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” As is evident, the sole issue that arises for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO by invoking the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(vii). 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 6 days in ITA No.652/Chny/2022, the condonation

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WANAPARTHY BLOCK vs. TAMILNADU SPECIAL POLICE EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE, TSP CAMP

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:363/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Income Tax Officer, Tamilnadu Special Police Non-Corporate Ward -7(3), Vs. Employees Cooperative, Chennai – 600 034. Avadi, Chennai – 600 054. [Pan:Aafat-0366-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Reddi Prakash, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Dated 11.10.2024. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 34 Days In Appeal Filed By The Revenue, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Revenue & Also Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That There Is A Reasonable Cause For The Revenue In Not Filing Appeal On Or Before The Due Date Prescribed Under The Law & Thus

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue for adjudication. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society formed with the objective providing of credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed its return of income on 21.12.2020 declaring a gross total income of Rs.4

SHRI L. UTHAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri L. Uthayakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2B, 2Nd Street Extn, Jainagar, Ward 4(4), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapu7318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 8 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition being difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration paid by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case

MURUGESAN SHANTHI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO,WARD-1, THANJAVUR

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2021 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a house wife and earning income from house property only. She has filed her return of income electronically on 03-04-2017 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 admitting total income of Rs. 65,090/- which

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:

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 is erroneous on the procedural aspects involved in the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed. 2. That

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

vii) of the Act. 7. That the Learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the Learned AO without appreciating the fact that a sum of Rs. 3,69,886 has been deposited out of the contribution received from his spouse out of her retained earnings. 8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Learned AO has erred

T vs. CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas that of cross objection of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

56(2) (vii) of the Act. 12. Now before us, argument of the ld. Departmental Representative was that ld. CIT (A) had no such powers. Arguments similar to what were advanced with reference to ground 2 were raised here also. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative strongly supported 13. the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

RAVI VIJAYALAKSHMI,ATHIPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

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

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 12. Insofar as the delay before the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, the explanation offered by the assessee is that the impugned penalty order was inadvertently misplaced by the Audit Assistant of the Chartered Accountant and that the omission came to light only upon receipt of the attachment notice, whereupon the appeal

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

vii) *** (viii) in respect of any special reserve created and maintained by a specified entity, an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the profits derived from eligible business computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account : Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts