SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the act dated 23.11.2019 and the revision order passed by PCIT u/s. 263

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

revision u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2013, the assumption of jurisdiction u/ s 147 of the Act to cover up the said lapse should be reckoned as fatal to such assumption of jurisdiction and ought to have appreciated further that having not demonstrated the availability of fresh materials, the stand of the appellant would get fortified, thereby vitiating

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

reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re- assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.” He further placed reliance upon the following decision

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

reassessment u/s 147. The assessee also assailed the proceedings on 6 the ground that sanction issued u/s 151 was given in a mechanical and casual manner. The assessee has also challenged the legality of proceedings u/s 153C. Since the larger issues including legal issues are already pending before first appellate authority, the order passed by Ld. AO, in our considered

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an\nassessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the\nright of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income\nbeing determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it\nwould imply extending/granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

u/s 263, the time limit for revision u/s.263 would run from order u/s.143(3) dated 23/12/2019 and hence the present revisionary proceedings initiated on 29/02/2024 is beyond limitation period. Without prejudice to above grounds on jurisdiction, even on merits 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the profit arising on assets sold

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

u/s 263, the time limit for revision u/s.263 would run from order u/s.143(3) dated 23/12/2019 and hence the present revisionary proceedings initiated on 29/02/2024 is beyond limitation period. Without prejudice to above grounds on jurisdiction, even on merits 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the profit arising on assets sold

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

VINAYAKA MEDICAL CARE CENTRE PVT LTD,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 90/Chny/ 2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to examine validity of 263 order passed by the PCIT in light of limitation prescribed under sub section (2) and the issues considered for revision of assessment. 13. It is a well settled principle of law by various courts that PCIT/CIT can exercise revision powers u/s

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

reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re- assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.” 14. He further placed reliance upon the following decision

LATE P.S.ULAGARAKSHAGAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT-3, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.249/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late P.S. Ulagarakshagan Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Ambika U, L/H Of Ulagarakshagan, Income Tax-3, No. 4, Anushya Street, Nagarjuna Chennai – 34. Nagar, 2Nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaipu8947Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – 3, Chennai Dated 11.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

revise an assessment u/s 263 is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. 3 Thus, the notice which has been issued in the name of dead person is also not protected either by provision of section 292B or 292BB of the IT Act. This is evident from Section 263 of the act which required

M/S. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

u/s. 263 shall fail. In this regard, assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.Alagendran Finance Ltd, reported in 62 Taxmann 465 and the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ICICI Bank reported in 343 ITR 74. As regards the third issue questioned

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

revision order passed u/s 263 is quashed.” :- 12 -: 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

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), 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.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed