SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income......as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139", Similarly, the language use in Section 156 which is reproduced

JANAKI THANGAM EDUCATIONNEL TRUST ,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, CHENAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

natural justice for the following reasons: (a) The assessment had been completed on 29.03.2022, without considering the Written Submissions made on 25.03.2022, filed in response to the Show-Cause Notice dated 15.03.2022; (b) The Show-Cause Notice, proposing the variations, was issued on 26.03.2022 (being Saturday) ignoring the Written Submissions filed on 25.03.2022 and asking the appellant to file

JANAKI THANGAM EDUCATIONNEL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 3, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

natural justice for the following reasons: (a) The assessment had been completed on 29.03.2022, without considering the Written Submissions made on 25.03.2022, filed in response to the Show-Cause Notice dated 15.03.2022; (b) The Show-Cause Notice, proposing the variations, was issued on 26.03.2022 (being Saturday) ignoring the Written Submissions filed on 25.03.2022 and asking the appellant to file

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

natural justice, as the Assessing Officer did not provide a\ncopy of the alleged Report of the Department of Economic Affairs under\nthe Ministry of Finance, which was the sole basis for framing the\nimpugned assessment.\n6. Without prejudice, the CIT (A) erred in being indifferent towards the\nfact that the Assessing Officer did not establish or substantiate his opinion

THE TAMIL NADU DR AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY,CHENNIA vs. INCOME- TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

natural justice, the same deserves to be quashed. In support of his submission, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Iljin Automotive (P.) Ltd., reported in [2025] 213 ITD 88. 6. This case was originally fixed for hearing on 04.03.2026. The Bench directed the Ld.DR to peruse the assessment records

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

natural justice, as the Assessing Officer did not provide a\ncopy of the alleged Report of the Department of Economic Affairs under\nthe Ministry of Finance, which was the sole basis for framing the\nimpugned assessment.\n6. Without prejudice, the CIT (A) erred in being indifferent towards the\nfact that the Assessing Officer did not establish or substantiate his opinion

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

reassessment was completed without furnishing to the Appellant a copy of the statement obtained from Mr. Abhishek Chokhani, either in whole or on in part, which was the sole and only basis of the proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

reassessment was completed without furnishing to the Appellant a copy of the statement obtained from Mr. Abhishek Chokhani, either in whole or on in part, which was the sole and only basis of the proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

natural justice. The CIT-Appeals 18 despite the Appellant's detailed submissions has not considered the Appellant's point of view. (C) General a. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal and to add any other grounds of appeal. b. For these grounds and for any other grounds that

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

natural justice. The CIT-Appeals 18 despite the Appellant's detailed submissions has not considered the Appellant's point of view. (C) General a. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal and to add any other grounds of appeal. b. For these grounds and for any other grounds that

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

natural justice. The CIT-Appeals 18 despite the Appellant's detailed submissions has not considered the Appellant's point of view. (C) General a. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal and to add any other grounds of appeal. b. For these grounds and for any other grounds that

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

natural justice. The CIT-Appeals 18 despite the Appellant's detailed submissions has not considered the Appellant's point of view. (C) General a. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal and to add any other grounds of appeal. b. For these grounds and for any other grounds that

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

natural justice. The CIT-Appeals 18 despite the Appellant's detailed submissions has not considered the Appellant's point of view. (C) General a. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, or delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal and to add any other grounds of appeal. b. For these grounds and for any other grounds that

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. [Para 63] • The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanate from proceedings

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb is bad in law. [Para 63] • The penalty proceedings are distinct from the assessment proceedings. The proceedings for imposition of penalty, though emanate from proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

natural justice and has not gone into discuss various additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. From the above it is clear that assessment order is set aside in total for fresh consideration by the assessing officer. Therefore, when the order is set aside for de novo assessment, then it is as good as afresh assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

natural justice and has not gone into discuss various additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. From the above it is clear that assessment order is set aside in total for fresh consideration by the assessing officer. Therefore, when the order is set aside for de novo assessment, then it is as good as afresh assessment

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

natural justice; or (iii) if the AO's order is passed without application of mind; or (iv) if (iii) if the AO's order is passed without application of mind; or (iv) if (iii) if the AO's order is passed without application of mind; or (iv) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him. It is only