ACIT, CHENNAI vs. A.M.RATNAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1736 To 1738/Chny/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. A.M. Ratnam Tax, 1, Velavan Street, Media Circle-Ii, West Kamakoti Nagar, Chennai-600 034. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Pan: Addpr 8973M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance was not based on any material and the same has been estimated without any basis.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer and assessment of all three concerned assessment years have been originally completed u/s.143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been subsequently reopened

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. A.M.RATNAM, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1736 To 1738/Chny/2013 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 To 2006-07) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs Mr. A.M. Ratnam Tax, 1, Velavan Street, Media Circle-Ii, West Kamakoti Nagar, Chennai-600 034. Valasaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. Pan: Addpr 8973M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance was not based on any material and the same has been estimated without any basis.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a film producer and assessment of all three concerned assessment years have been originally completed u/s.143(1) or 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment has been subsequently reopened

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reopening the assessment. The Sale Deed copy was available with the assessing officer and after applying his mind only he has passed the original order u/s. 143(3). There was no fresh material available with the assessing officer. Since the assessing officer has not applied the provisions of Section 50C while making the original order of assessment. Now the Assessing

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

assessment for the second time on the premise that deduction u/s.54F was not allowable on deemed income and 54F was not allowable on deemed income and 54F was not allowable on deemed income and therefore required disallowance. She accordingly argued that the therefore required disallowance. She accordingly argued that the therefore required disallowance. She accordingly argued that the reopening

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

assessed in this office. The assessee society, the Income Tax Act and assessed in this office. The assessee society, the Income Tax Act and assessed in this office. The assessee society, M/s. Caruna Bal Vikas was referred to Special Audit u/s. 142(2A) of the M/s. Caruna Bal Vikas was referred to Special Audit

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

assessed in this office. The assessee society, the Income Tax Act and assessed in this office. The assessee society, the Income Tax Act and assessed in this office. The assessee society, M/s. Caruna Bal Vikas was referred to Special Audit u/s. 142(2A) of the M/s. Caruna Bal Vikas was referred to Special Audit

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reopening the assessment is only with regards to the disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reopening the assessment is only with regards to the disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reopening the assessment is only with regards to the disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reopening the assessment is only with regards to the disallowance of amount paid to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. In case

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

reopening, which was duly furnished on 24.10.2016, the gist of which is reproduce as under: “The assessee has debited an interest cost of Rs30,46,435/- towards interest arid finance charges in the P&L account The break-up of the same cornpNses interest paid to M/s.Rellgare Finvest Ltd. of Rs.25, 14,613/-, Mis. Cholarnandalarn of Rs.5,516/- and that

RASI SEEDS (P) LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reopening of assessment, there is no allegation on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and further, notice u/s.148 has been issued without proper approval from the competent authority. The assessee had also challenged additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

reopened under-section-147 of the Act 1961’’. The ld. Assessing Officer on merits treated the sale of land as capital asset and disallowed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

disallowance under section 14A of the Act, long term capital gains, short term capital gain (non-STT) and STCG (STT). 2.1 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has reopened

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP CIRCLE 8, CHENNAI

Reopening of assessment\n1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in approving the reassessment which was framed by forming a different opinion on the same set of facts submitted to the learned AO during the course of original assessment and thereby acting against the well settled law that change of opinion cannot be a basis for reassessment\nIssue 2 - Disallowance

EAST COAST CONSULTANTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3107, 3108, 3109 & 3110/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06 & 2008-09 M/S. East Coast Consultants The Assistant Commissioner Of & Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, “Bukharia Buildings”, No. 4, Company Circle Ii(1), Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaace9097J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 30.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2005-06, Order Dated 29.08.2018 For The Assessment Year 2004-05 & Order Dated 31.08.2018. I.T.A. No. 3107/Chny/2018 [Ay: 2003-04] 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under:

reopened and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing the entire claim of depreciation

EAST COAST CONSULTANTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3107, 3108, 3109 & 3110/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06 & 2008-09 M/S. East Coast Consultants The Assistant Commissioner Of & Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, “Bukharia Buildings”, No. 4, Company Circle Ii(1), Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaace9097J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 30.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2003-04 & 2005-06, Order Dated 29.08.2018 For The Assessment Year 2004-05 & Order Dated 31.08.2018. I.T.A. No. 3107/Chny/2018 [Ay: 2003-04] 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Extracted As Under:

reopened and completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by disallowing the entire claim of depreciation

SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

assessment was reopened on the ground of an escapement of income under Section 147 and an order of reassessment was passed by which the claim under Section 72A came to be disallowed