DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

73,85,491/-. Thus, the appellant assessee claimed entire long term . Thus, the appellant assessee claimed entire long term . Thus, the appellant assessee claimed entire long term capital gain as exempt from tax under Section 54 of the said Act. gain as exempt from tax under Section 54 of the said Act. 5. The Assessing Officer held that only that

DURAISAMY SENTHIL KUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.552/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Duraisamy Senthil Kumar Vs The Income Tax Officer, 16, Muthurangam Street, Erode. Erode-638 001. Pan: Alwps 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 270A of the Act to the tune of Rs. 9,69,180/- on the presumption of misreporting of income of Rs.4,84,590/- as per the provisions of section 270A

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

73 taxmann.com 120 (SC) to submit that the amount of share capital received from the various shareholders cannot be as assessed as business income.\n7.5.15 Reliance has been placed by the assessee on the decisions of the Bombay High Court in PCIT v ApeakInfotech[2017] 88 taxrnann.com 695 (Bombay) for the proposition that share premium receipt is on capital account

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

73 taxmann.com 120\n(SC) to submit that the amount of share capital received\nfrom the various shareholders cannot be as assessed as\nbusiness income.\n7.5.15 Reliance has been placed by the assessee on the\ndecisions of the Bombay High Court in PCIT v\nApeakInfotech[2017] 88 taxmann.com 695 (Bombay) for\nthe proposition that share premium receipt is on capital

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

73,950/-. 3.1 The AO required the assessee to explain the source and investment and assessee explained that he has sold property measuring18,988 sq.ft., at Plot No.7/10B, Ambattur Industrial Estate, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 58 for a total consideration of Rs.4 crores.Out of settlement of 2011 with his wife Smt. S.K. Geetha,the assessee has purchased a house property

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

73,950/-. 3.1 The AO required the assessee to explain the source and investment and assessee explained that he has sold property measuring18,988 sq.ft., at Plot No.7/10B, Ambattur Industrial Estate, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 58 for a total consideration of Rs.4 crores.Out of settlement of 2011 with his wife Smt. S.K. Geetha,the assessee has purchased a house property

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

73,950/-. 3.1 The AO required the assessee to explain the source and investment and assessee explained that he has sold property measuring18,988 sq.ft., at Plot No.7/10B, Ambattur Industrial Estate, MTH Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 58 for a total consideration of Rs.4 crores.Out of settlement of 2011 with his wife Smt. S.K. Geetha,the assessee has purchased a house property

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

73 (Madras) which held that “mere production of accounts does not amount to disclosure if material facts are not explicitly brought to the AO’s notice”. Further, the survey statement of 25.02.2019 provided critical evidence that the assessee’s activities were commercial, not charitable, which was not disclosed earlier. 8 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 10. She argued vehemently that

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

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

HARITA FAHRER LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIR-2(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

Property Rights (IPR) and non-compete fees and claimed depreciation. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on IPR but denied depreciation on non-compete fees on the ground that it was not an asset. Further, there was no break up of amount as to how much amount was allocable towards IPR and how much amount was allocable towards non-compete fees. Upon

HARITA FEHRER LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2254/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3480/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3481/Chny/2018 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2746/Chny/2019 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Harita Fehrer Limited Dcit-Corporate Circle-2(2) / बनाम/ No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Acit, Salary Circle-Ii Vs. Haddows Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacch-1037-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, (Fca), Shri Ravikumar, (Ca) & Shri Anil Kumar, (Ca) - Ld. Ars !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan (Add.Cit)-Ld. Dr

Property Rights (IPR) and non-compete fees and claimed depreciation. The Tribunal allowed depreciation on IPR but denied depreciation on non-compete fees on the ground that it was not an asset. Further, there was no break up of amount as to how much amount was allocable towards IPR and how much amount was allocable towards non-compete fees. Upon