DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

250 dated 09.03.2020 passed by CIT(A), Coimbatore.\n:- 2 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\n2.0 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the grounds\nof appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had originally filed\ngrounds of appeal which were out rightly descriptive and narrative in\nnature. The appellant, vide order dated 30.11.2023, was directed to file\nto file concise grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

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

250. It was in this commercial and financial context that the Appellant was therefore able to obtain the investment from the foreign investors at the price of Rs.250 per share.\n7.5.9 Appellant stated that the share premium from foreign investors has been received based on the Shareholders Agreement. A Shareholders Agreement dated 8th February 2007 and a Supplemental Shareholders Agreement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under: -\nS.\nNo.\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under: -\nS.\nNo.\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under: -\nS.\nNo.\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under: -\nS.\nNo.\nITA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under: -\nS.\nNo.\nITA

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

250. It was in this commercial and financial context that\nthe Appellant was therefore able to obtain the investment\nfrom the foreign investors at the price of Rs.250 per share.\n7.5.9 Appellant stated that the share premium from foreign\ninvestors has been received based on the Shareholders\nAgreement. A Shareholders Agreement dated 8th February\n2007 and a Supplemental Shareholders Agreement

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

250/- on protective basis Though the A.O. did not write protective basis but stayed the recovery proceedings as the same issue was pending before CIT(A). 5.1.5 Timeline of the transaction and undisputed facts are as under. - 10.10.1971 Properties were acquired on 10.10.1971 through settlement deed. ii. 12.10.2008 The appellant entered into JDA with A K Properties Promoters (AK hereafter

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [PAN: AAGCA5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश