ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

125 ITD 122 (Mum) dated 19.12.2008. Accordingly he pleaded that the latest decision of Mumbai Tribunal dated 19.12.2008 would hold the field as on date and prayed for restoration of the order of the ld AO in this regard. 5. In response to this, the ld AR submitted that the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of C.C.Chokshi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER PALANIAPPA GOUNDER MARIAPPAN, KARUR

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

125, 126, 127 and 213, 214, 215 / Chny/2023 dated 03.04.2024 iii) DCIT Central Circle-2(4) Chennai vs Vaithialingam in ITA No. 604,605,606/chny/2023 dated03.04.2024 iv) DCIT Central Circle-2(4) Chennai vs Vivek papisetty in ITA No. 211, 212 and 405/Chny/2023 dated 02.04.2024 v) DCIT Central Circle-2(4) Chennai vs P Ram Mohan

MOHIT CHANDAK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17

Sections 148 to 151 would not sustain once the substituted provisions had come to be placed in the statute by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the basis of the aforesaid, the respective High Courts proceeded to set aside those reassessment notices. While the High Court of Allahabad quashed the reassessment notices, our Court in its judgment rendered

MOHIT CHANDAK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.191 & 194/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17

Sections 148 to 151 would not sustain once the substituted provisions had come to be placed in the statute by virtue of Finance Act, 2021. On the basis of the aforesaid, the respective High Courts proceeded to set aside those reassessment notices. While the High Court of Allahabad quashed the reassessment notices, our Court in its judgment rendered

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

Bench: This Tribunal.

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

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

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

NAGARAJAN JAYA,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KANCHIPURAM

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

125/-. 5. Apart from this, the AO has also made an addition of Rs.25,88,000/- as unexplained cash deposit. Aggrieved against the reassessment order the Assessee filed a Revision Application before the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s.264 of the Act vide revision application dated 23.01.2019. In the Revision Application the Assessee has challenged the entire reassessment order

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

125/- by adding difference in capital gains earlier omitted. It is against the assessment of gain on transfer of land as capital gains by invoking section 50C provisions. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

125 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates 2000 15,90,152 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates Due to Krishnan, 1,42,748 Pending Bills Engineer Due to Sreenivasan 1,56,000 Pending Bills 9 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 For sanitary 36,64,425 7.7 According to AR, if these are considered, the total cost of construction accounted, works

M/S. J FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

125 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates 2000 15,90,152 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates Due to Krishnan, 1,42,748 Pending Bills Engineer Due to Sreenivasan 1,56,000 Pending Bills 9 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 For sanitary 36,64,425 7.7 According to AR, if these are considered, the total cost of construction accounted, works

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

125 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates 2000 15,90,152 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates Due to Krishnan, 1,42,748 Pending Bills Engineer Due to Sreenivasan 1,56,000 Pending Bills 9 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 For sanitary 36,64,425 7.7 According to AR, if these are considered, the total cost of construction accounted, works

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

125 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates 2000 15,90,152 Advance from Sastri Nuts & Plates Due to Krishnan, 1,42,748 Pending Bills Engineer Due to Sreenivasan 1,56,000 Pending Bills 9 I.T.A. Nos.306, 307, 308 & 309/Mds/2011 For sanitary 36,64,425 7.7 According to AR, if these are considered, the total cost of construction accounted, works

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. MS.AARTHI SCANS, KOVILPATTI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

reassessment on the basis of change of opinion will amount to giving the power of review to the AO which is contrary to the scheme of the IT Act. Accordingly it was decided that AO cannot assume jurisdiction to re-assess on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. As there is complete absence

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

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

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 o{his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant