THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

revising the invalid order u/s.147 of the Act. As noted this issue has been analyzed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has equated the reopening assessment u/s.147 to primary proceedings and the subsequent proceedings by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 passed to be collateral proceedings. In this order

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

u/s 154 dated 19.07.2022 by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2010- 11 is considered to be erroneous as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue, within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The same is hence partly set aside, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries

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

Properties Limited, is engaged in the business of construction, development and sale of housing projects and other related activities. The appellant is a company governed by the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant adopted IND-AS (Indian Accounting Standards) as mandated by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), the Government of India for the first time in the financial year

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

revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous

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

revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous

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

revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous

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

revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before passing the impugned order u/s 154, the same fell in the category of an order which is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

T V SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LIMITED,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2, , MADURAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

revision u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. Counsel also relied upon the judgments which were referred by the assessee before the ld.PCIT. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR, Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT has submitted his detailed written submission as under: The learned PCIT considered that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.12.2016 was erroneous

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

u/s 143(3) dated 31.10.2017 after a thorough deliberation of the facts submitted along with the documents and other explanations given to him at the time of scrutiny assessment, thus making the entire proceeding u/ s 263 of the Act not tenable under the provisions of the Act. 5. The CIT failed to appreciate that the order of revision under

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

revision order passed u/s 263 is quashed.” 19. The Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v. B.J.D. Paper Products [2012] 20 taxmann.com 314 (Lucknow) has held as under (relevant portion): - “8.6 We have already discussed hereinabove that the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT (supra ) is also in favour

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the\nAct however held that the assessee was not engaged in any formal\neducational activity as it was not affiliated with any regulatory body.\nInstead, according to Ld. CIT, the assessee acted as a contractor/service\nprovider with the elements of formal schooling being absent, and its\nactivities, was construed to be of a GPU, being

SHANMUGANATHAN RAJASEKARAN,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1897/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21

revision order was passed at the instance of Audit Objection which does not come under the provision Explanation 1(b) of Section 263(1). 5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld.PCIT initiated the proceedings in response to the proposal sent by the AO to set aside the assessment order and initiate proceedings u/s 263

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property and was wrongly offered as income from other sources. While doing so, reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents on the subject. In para 11 of his order, he concluded that the Ld.AO has failed to do requisite enquiries and verification into the issue and hence the order passed by him falls into the category of the same

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 30.3.2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 was passed on 22.12.2016. Appeals were filed on 21.01.2017. Remand report requiring the AO to carry out verification with the buyers took place in February, 2021. 9.2. Perusal of the agreement with Ms. Rathinammal clearly indicates that the sale price

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 30.3.2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 was passed on 22.12.2016. Appeals were filed on 21.01.2017. Remand report requiring the AO to carry out verification with the buyers took place in February, 2021. 9.2. Perusal of the agreement with Ms. Rathinammal clearly indicates that the sale price

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 30.3.2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 was passed on 22.12.2016. Appeals were filed on 21.01.2017. Remand report requiring the AO to carry out verification with the buyers took place in February, 2021. 9.2. Perusal of the agreement with Ms. Rathinammal clearly indicates that the sale price

SANJAY CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM., SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 30.3.2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 was passed on 22.12.2016. Appeals were filed on 21.01.2017. Remand report requiring the AO to carry out verification with the buyers took place in February, 2021. 9.2. Perusal of the agreement with Ms. Rathinammal clearly indicates that the sale price

REKHA CHAWLA,SALEM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM, SALEM

In the result, appeals filed by both assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.392 & 393/Chny/2021 &

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was passed on 30.3.2016. Assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.263 was passed on 22.12.2016. Appeals were filed on 21.01.2017. Remand report requiring the AO to carry out verification with the buyers took place in February, 2021. 9.2. Perusal of the agreement with Ms. Rathinammal clearly indicates that the sale price