SUPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. Therefore, according to Ld AR, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment

DCIT , TDS CIRCLE , COIMBATORE vs. M/S KOVAI MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL LIMITED , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1004/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kovai Medical Centre & Income Tax, V. Hospital Limited, Tds Circle, 99 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore - 641 014. [Pan: Aaack-9192-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit -Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

section 192 of the Act. 17. At this stage, it is relevant to consider the following case laws cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has taken support from the order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition no. 12692 and others dated 01.09.2022. We find that the department

MOORTHY,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, SALEM

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

192, wherein it has been held that when contrary views has been taken by two high courts when there is no jurisdictional high court decision, the decision favorable to the assessee has to be adapted. 4. Per contra the ld. DR Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT for the revenue relied upon the impugned order and read out paras

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SHANMUGASUNDARAM MANOHARAN, MADURAI

In the result, all the appealsbeing ITA Nos

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

192, WEST MASI STREET, TAMILNADU. NEAR POTHYS, MADURAI-625001. [PAN: AITPM1981H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क! ओर से/ : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT Assessee/Revenue by " यथ" क! ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date of : 09.12.2025 Pronouncement ITA Nos. 1607,1608,1609,1648/Chny/2025

S. MANOHARAN,MADURAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appealsbeing ITA Nos

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

192, WEST MASI STREET, TAMILNADU. NEAR POTHYS, MADURAI-625001. [PAN: AITPM1981H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क! ओर से/ : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT Assessee/Revenue by " यथ" क! ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date of : 09.12.2025 Pronouncement ITA Nos. 1607,1608,1609,1648/Chny/2025

S. MANOHARAN,MADURAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appealsbeing ITA Nos

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

192, WEST MASI STREET, TAMILNADU. NEAR POTHYS, MADURAI-625001. [PAN: AITPM1981H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क! ओर से/ : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT Assessee/Revenue by " यथ" क! ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date of : 09.12.2025 Pronouncement ITA Nos. 1607,1608,1609,1648/Chny/2025

S. MANOHARAN,MADURAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appealsbeing ITA Nos

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

192, WEST MASI STREET, TAMILNADU. NEAR POTHYS, MADURAI-625001. [PAN: AITPM1981H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क! ओर से/ : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT Assessee/Revenue by " यथ" क! ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क! तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 26.11.2025 घोषणा क! तार"ख /Date of : 09.12.2025 Pronouncement ITA Nos. 1607,1608,1609,1648/Chny/2025

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

reassessment order is liable to be quashed, we proceed further to decide the issue on the merits of the case. 41. As far as the issue of invocation of the provisions of section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 to make addition of the undisclosed income declared in Form 1 under IDS, 2016, as income in the assessment year

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

reassessment order is liable to be quashed, we proceed further to decide the issue on the merits of the case. 41. As far as the issue of invocation of the provisions of section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 to make addition of the undisclosed income declared in Form 1 under IDS, 2016, as income in the assessment year

UMA MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

192 provides that a declaration cannot be admitted in evidence. Once it is admitted that the declaration is deemed never to have been made, the said Form 1 will constitute material that is admissible in evidence against the declarant, since the said Form 1 is no longer a declaration as contemplated u/s.183 of the FA 2016. Any other view

UMAMAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2033/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

192 provides that a declaration cannot be admitted in evidence. Once it is admitted that the declaration is deemed never to have been made, the said Form 1 will constitute material that is admissible in evidence against the declarant, since the said Form 1 is no longer a declaration as contemplated u/s.183 of the FA 2016. Any other view

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings are held to be valid in law 4.12 Further, in the factual matrix as available, there is no requirement for the Assessing Officer to invoke section 163 of the Act. as CB & I Lummus Mauritius is a created structure to avoid tax and is not a distinct legal entity. The same would be discussed in the later part

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 or recomputation u/s.147 as well issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act or for conducting of inquiry or for issuance of show cause notice or passing of order u/s.148A of the Act. We have gone through the additional ground No.1 which is being legal/jurisdictional ground hence, admit the same in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme Court has since conclusively settled the issue, by dismissing the SLP in\n:: 9 ::\nITA No.3934/Chny/2025

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\nITA No.341/Chny/2025 (AY 2019-20)\nDGL Dist Govt Teachers Cooperative S Ltd Vs ITO\n:: 10 ::\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme Court

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme Court has since conclusively settled the issue, by dismissing the SLP in\nDeepanjan Roy (Supra) and Prakash

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\nITA No.3390/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19)\nSun Power Life Battery Centre Vs ITO W 2 Tuticorin\n:: 10 ::\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme Court has since conclusively settled the issue, by dismissing the SLP in\nDeepanjan Roy (Supra) and Prakash

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

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

192 (Bombay\nHC);\nh. Sundaram Multi Pap Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay HC);\ni. Venus Jewel v. ACIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 414 (Bombay HC).\n3. He states that the Revenue carried some of these judgments in appeal, and the\nSupreme Court has since conclusively settled the issue, by dismissing the SLP in\nDeepanjan Roy (Supra) and Prakash