CT. RAMANATHAN (HUF),PUDUKKOTTAI vs. PCIT 1, MADURAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessing officer has raised long questionnaire/queries relating to agricultural income. The chorological events written submissions of the assessee are find mentioned from Pages 4-10 of the CIT order. However, the ld. CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee and held as under: “….But it is seen from

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

section 263 of the Act. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the findings of the ld. CIT and further contended that issue had not been examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the records of the lower authorities and Schedule UD: “Unabsorbed Depreciation

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

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

depreciation 180 8. - Detail of default statement 181 9. - Details of donation for scientific research 182 10. 08.12.2021 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 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

INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS & FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

depreciation thereon was allowable. He\naccordingly held that the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13)\ndated 05.05.2022 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.\nThe assessment order was therefore partly set aside with a direction to the AO to\nmake necessary inquiries on the said issue and to pass a fresh order after\nproviding due opportunity

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

263. The view taken by the Assessing Officer should not be a mere view in vacuum but a judicial view. It is well established that the Assessing Officer being a quasi- judicial authority cannot take a view, either against or in favour of the assessee/revenue, without making proper inquiries and without proper examination of the claim made by the assessee

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

Section 263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue. Their Lordship in the said judgment held that every loss

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 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 (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee filed its original return of 2 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 income on 30.09.2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 declaring total income of ₹.13,68,88,710/- under normal provisions and book profit of ₹.5,76,55,857/- under section 115JB

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 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 (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee filed its original return of 2 I.T.A. Nos.61 & 62/Chny/21 income on 30.09.2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 declaring total income of ₹.13,68,88,710/- under normal provisions and book profit of ₹.5,76,55,857/- under section 115JB

TAQA NEYVELI POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 263. To support the arguments, reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on records. The Ld. AR also filed copies of computation of income etc. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, justified the revision and submitted that adequate notice of hearing was already given to the assessee and nothing

TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, 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.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Depreciation on goodwill, Provision for warranty and Disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Appellant submits: a) There is no ground to revise the order passed earlier under section 143(3) by the AO under section 263

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

263 of the Act and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, exercise of jurisdiction under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of alleged "inadequate investigation", it will be difficult to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer, who had conducted enquiries and had acted

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), whereby the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) read with section 254 of the Act dated 20.02.2024 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 2. The brief facts emanating from the records are that the assessee, Hyundai Motor India Limited (“HMIL

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].

section 263 of the Act, after examining the assessment records, the ld. PCIT has noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

M/S. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation on assets of amalgamated company and claim of expenditure on account of debentures and bonds issue and redemption of expenditure etc. The Assessing Officer has taken up the case for fresh examination in pursuant to directions of learned CIT under section 263

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

depreciation allowance into two, to exclude one portion and on that ground also the order of the assessing authority has become erroneous. 3.3 In view of the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed a revision order under section 263

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2003-04 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2002-03 is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1403 & 1404/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Sree Lakshmi Valli, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 27.03.2015 & 31.03.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2002-03 & 2003-04 Respectively.

depreciation allowance into two, to exclude one portion and on that ground also the order of the assessing authority has become erroneous. 3.3 In view of the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed a revision order under section 263

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, 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.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

263 of the Act. 6. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT on jurisdiction challenging the order of the ld. CIT. The ITAT, in their order Nos. 1780(Mds)/2009, 1768 & 1733 (Mds)/2010 dated 11.06.2012, upheld the order passed by the ld. CIT dated 23.03.2005. 7. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section