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

192. 8.. CIT vs RSM & I Co.. in I.T.A.No. 188 of 2014 dated 11.8.2016 [Bombay High Court] 9. CIT vs Nariman B. Bharucha & Sons, [1980] 4 Taxman 76 (Born) 13.. On the other hand, the Id. DR argued that the payment made to retired partners was made from the income of the firm and hence, cannot

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

SAPPAHIRE 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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

192 ITR 151 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Western India Sea Food (P) Ltd., (1993) 199 ITR 777 has considered the exactly identical facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd., supra, held as under:- 2. Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned Counsel for the Union of India, vehemently contends

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

192 ITR 151 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Western India Sea Food (P) Ltd., (1993) 199 ITR 777 has considered the exactly identical facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabhai Management Corporation Ltd., supra, held as under:- 2. Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned Counsel for the Union of India, vehemently contends

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

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

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

BAMA BALASUBRAMANYAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1981/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 Ms. Bama Balasubramanyam, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 7, Old No. 5, Ii Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Business Circle 1/ Cit Nagar (East), Chennai 600 035. Dcit/Acit, Non Corporate Circle I Chennai. [Pan: Aajpb2978H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Awjit Rakshit, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 34(1)(b) would have no application.” It is very clear that the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to consider a material, which cannot by itself, stop him from considering the same to 8 I.T.A. No.1981/M/16 form a reason to believe an escapement of income. Where, therefore, there is a live and clear nexus between

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

sections, be allowed, in computing the total income of the assessee, a deduction of an amount equal to 100 per cent of the profits and gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Deduction is given to eligible business and the same is defined in sub-s. (4). Sub-s(2) provides option to the assessee to choose