ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 (at Page 143 Paragraph 8-10 of ADP), held that the charge is to be levied on an income only once and held that there could not be fresh

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

112) (Del HC) − CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612) (Del HC) − PCIT v. R.L. Allied Industries (ITA No.370/2015) (Del HC) − CIT v. Gopi Apartments (365 ITR 411) (All.HC) ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 5 :: 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue countered the assessee’s contention by relying on the amendment

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

112) (Del HC)\nCIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612) (Del HC)\nPCIT v. R.L. Allied Industries (ITA No.370/2015) (Del HC)\nCIT v. Gopi Apartments (365 ITR 411) (All.HC)\nITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nBondalapati Shivaji Rao\n:: 5 ::\n5.\nPer contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue countered\nthe assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

112 of the Paper Book) and the same has been explained before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). 7.1 The AO and also the ld.CIT(A) have misconstrued the facts and treated these transactions as speculative in nature under section 43(5) of the Act and has disallowed the same. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that these transactions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

112 of the Paper Book) and the same has been explained before the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A). 7.1 The AO and also the ld.CIT(A) have misconstrued the facts and treated these transactions as speculative in nature under section 43(5) of the Act and has disallowed the same. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that these transactions

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

112 of the Paper Book)\nand the same has been explained before the AO as well as the\nLd.CIT(A).\n7.1 The AO and also the Id.CIT(A) have misconstrued the facts and\ntreated these transactions as speculative in nature under section\n43(5) of the Act and has disallowed the same. The Ld.CIT(A) further\nobserved that these transactions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub- -section (1) is pending on the date of initiation of the search u/s. 132 of the Act shal pending on the date of initiation of the search

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. SAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS, ERODE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

112(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the ‘Rules’) issued in Form No.35, by virtue of which the searched person u/s.132 of the Act vide dated 24.03.2016 is M/s. RPP Infra Projects Ltd. The ld.CIT-DR took us through the search warrant issued in Form No.35 and stated that consequent to this search warrant issued in the name

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

112 of the Paper Book)\nand the same has been explained before the AO as well as the\nLd.CIT(A).\n7.1 The AO and also the Id.CIT(A) have misconstrued the facts and\ntreated these transactions as speculative in nature under section\n43(5) of the Act and has disallowed the same. The Ld.CIT(A) further\nobserved that these transactions

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (DCIT), CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

112 of the Paper Book)\nand the same has been explained before the AO as well as the\nLd.CIT(A).\n7.1 The AO and also the Id.CIT(A) have misconstrued the facts and\ntreated these transactions as speculative in nature under section\n43(5) of the Act and has disallowed the same. The Ld.CIT(A) further\nobserved that these transactions

ACIT, NCC-22,, TAMBARAM vs. SHRI KAMAL CHILAKA,, KANATHUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

112. PAN:AHJPK 6958K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the Revenue is arising

THURAPSHA SYED IBRAHIM,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1884/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Thurapsha Syed Ibrahim, The Ito, No.6/16, Pallivasal Street, Ward-4, Vedampudur, Aiyampuram P.O., Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 805. [Pan: Abepi 2962E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had dismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS Builders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

SP CHIDAMBARAM,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the\nSupreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

DGL DIST GOVT TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,DINDIGUL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DINDIGUL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the\nSupreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

SHANMUGAM CHINNIA GOUNDER,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 1(1), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the\nSupreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

VASU SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORP WARD 1(6),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nITA No 3331/Chny/2025\n(AY 2020-21)\nVASU SARAVANAN (Vs.) ITO NON CORP WARD 1 (6)\n:: 11 ::\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment

SUN POWER LIFE BATTERY CENTRE,KOVILPATTI vs. ITO WARD 2, TUTICORIN, TUTICORIN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the\nSupreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

JAYA CHANDRA RAJAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 1 TIRUNELVEL, TIRUNELVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the\nAct. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had\ndismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS\nBuilders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the\nSupreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with

SAMBASIVAM NANDHA,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 3(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms above and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3245/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Sa No.117/Chny/2025 [In Ita No.3245/Chny/2025] V. Shri Sambasivam Nandha, Ito, 10/305, 7Th Street, Nchatra Non-Corporate Ward-3(2), Garden, Oraikalpalayam, Race Course, Coimbatore, Masagoundenchettipalayam, Tamil Nadu-641018 Coimbatore Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ahepn0682Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. K. Gowtham, Ca : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr. Guru Prasad, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 : घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.01.2026

reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. In fact, in PC Jeweller Ltd. (Supra), a coordinate bench of this Court had dismissed a writ petition seeking similar relief by following the judgment in TKS Builders (Supra). Though the said judgment has been taken in appeal before the Supreme Court, the Revenue has been permitted to continue the proceedings with