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)

127 of the Act dated 01.03.2021. It is an admitted fact that, the AO has recorded his satisfaction note on 12.03.2021 and thereafter initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act albeit for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 by issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act dated 12.03.2021. For the relevant AY 2019-20, the AO is noted to have issued notice

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Dwarakesh, Ca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Chennai (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)') Dated 26.07.2023 Passed For Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2019-20.

127 of the Act dated 01.03.2021. It is an admitted fact that, the AO has recorded his satisfaction note on 12.03.2021 and thereafter initiated proceedings u/s.153C of the Act albeit for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 by issuing notice u/s.153C of the Act dated 12.03.2021. For the relevant AY 2019-20, the AO is noted to have issued notice

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

reassessment in consequence of the impugned notice would be in consequence of, or to give effect to, any findings of the Tribunal in Boudier Christian's case. A direction or finding as contemplated by section 153(3)(ii) must be a finding necessary for the disposal of a particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee

R MURUGAPPA @ MURUVAPPAN,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-4, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law and ought to have appreciated that the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in the case reported in 259 ITR 19 was not followed admittedly while there was absolutely no material to justify the assumption of jurisdiction

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-:

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

K.SUGANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 127. As a consequence, the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and illegal. 2.2 When the appellant’s address as per PAN is in Salem and when the appellant’s jurisdictional Assessing Officer is ACIT, Circle 1, Salem, the notice u/s.148 dated 31.03.2017 issued by the ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 10(1), Chennai

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

2 days of recording thereof. Such retracted statement, on standalone basis, could not justify impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. Another fact is that the assessee was also subjected to search action wherein the department is unable to recover any incriminating material which would establish that the assessee was in receipt of such unaccounted money as alleged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

2 days of recording thereof. Such retracted statement, on standalone basis, could not justify impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. Another fact is that the assessee was also subjected to search action wherein the department is unable to recover any incriminating material which would establish that the assessee was in receipt of such unaccounted money as alleged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

2 days of recording thereof. Such retracted statement, on standalone basis, could not justify impugned additions in the hands of the assessee. Another fact is that the assessee was also subjected to search action wherein the department is unable to recover any incriminating material which would establish that the assessee was in receipt of such unaccounted money as alleged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

127 days in filing three appeals for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits by the Revenue, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

127 days in filing three appeals for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits by the Revenue, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue for AY 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18 read as under

SAME DEUTZ FAHR ITALIA SPA,ITALY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings is invalid. 2.5 The Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that merechange of opinion cannot per se be the reason for re-opening under section 147 since there was no fresh material on record which merits such re opening. 2.6 The Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment based on certain information which was available in a different

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.333, 334 & 335/Chny/2021 & Ita No.847/Chny/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Rpp Infra Projects Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Limited, Sf No.454, Ragupathynaickenpalayam, Erode-638 002. Pan :Aaacr-9307-E (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant By प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Shivanand K. Kalakeri, Cit : Mr. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2025 : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 / 19, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 24.02.2021 / 06.07.2022 For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2016-17 Respectively. The Facts As Well As Issues Are Admittedly Identical In All These Years. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, Ay 2012-13 Has Been Taken To Be The Lead Year. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 127 Days In Filing Three Appeals For Ays 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Affidavits By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay & Treat The Reasons As 'Sufficient Cause' & Admit These Appeals For Adjudication.

127 days in filing three appeals for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavits by the Revenue, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit these appeals for adjudication. ITA Nos.333 to 335Chny/2021 & 847/Chny/2022 3. The common grounds raised by Revenue