V S TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 56(2)(vii); that such receipt of property by the trust will not be taxable u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. Having taken note of this position of law, we now revert back to the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that, the settler contributing the property is an individual and that the assessee

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

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

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

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

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

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

properties received by an assessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply to companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It was by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section 56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. ANITHA KUMARAN, CHENNAI

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

section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Since the ground does not require appreciation of new facts, the same is admitted. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR, drawing attention to the grounds of appeal, submitted that a corporate entity was the owner of the asset which was transferred to the assessee and therefore, the provisions of Sec.56(2)(vii) has rightly

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

properties received by an\nassessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply\nto companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It\nwas by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment\nYear 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section\n56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to\ncompanies also. Thus, there is no case

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)

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub- clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

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)

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub- clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

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)

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub- clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

GATES WEARS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

KM KNIT WEAR,TIRUPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

VICTUS DYEINGS ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT , CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

SAN TEX INC.,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

LATE ASHOK KUMAR MURARKA REPRESENTED THROUGH WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR RAJBALA MURARKA,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCW 4(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.887/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Late Sri Ashok Kumar Muraka, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By Wife & Legal Heir Vs. Non Corporate Ward-4(1), Smt. Rajbala Muraka, Chennai. No.22, Kolandai Street, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaqpa 7031D]

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee had booked a Row House and paid by way of account payee cheque on 08.10.2009. The assessee has entered into agreement for sale. The deed of sale was registered for sale consideration was fixed and also property which is to be convened through the agreement for sale. The deed of sale

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

56(2) (vii)(c) (as in Rs. 92,95,305/-\nparas 15.1 to 15.5)\nGross Total income Rs. 2,37,25,823/-\nLess: Deduction under Chapter VIA Rs. 2,60,72,169/-\nRs. 1,00,000/-\nTotal income Rs. 2,59,72,169/-\nAssessed income Rs. 2,59,72,170/-\n\n18. The assessee aggrieved by the passing

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

vii) & (ix). We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that these fixed assets were in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and hence the assessee had rightly claimed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the same. The Ld. CIT, DR appearing before us are was unable to controvert the same. We therefore

LATE MUTHUMALAINADAR KRISHNAVEL, REPRESENTED BY 6 LEGAL HEIRS,TUTICORIN vs. PCIT-1, MADURAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1018/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. K.Indira, Pcit-1 Shri K.Muthuvel, Madurai. Shri Selvakumaran, Shri M.K.Balaji बनाम/ Shri K.Ragupathy, Shri K.Sudhakar Vs. All L/Hs Of Late Shri Muthumalainadar Krishnavel, 15, Melanavaladivillai, Arumuganeri, Tuticorin-628 202. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bctpk-6952-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

property would not automatically warrant addition to be made in the hands of the appellant in the capacity of individual, thereby vitiating the revision order. 10. The PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of applicability of Section 56[2)[vii)[b)[ii) of the Act was considered in the re-assessment proceedings and ought to have appreciated that there