ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2022, determining the total assessed income at ₹1,70,77,591/- as against the returned income of ₹61,371/-. And as noted supra, the ibid assessment order didn’t contain any finding or direction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of the additions made, which

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is\ntime to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by\nissuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised\nreturn of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our\nattention to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is\ntime to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by\nissuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised\nreturn of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our\nattention to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

Reassessment Proceedings initiated is barred by limitation 3.1 The Ld. AO erred in facts and law without appreciating the fact that the Guarantee fee received by the Appellant amounting to INR 3,908,249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section

KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order without considering that his powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer

KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order without considering that his powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

249 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR\n613 (Delhi), summarised the conclusion as follows:\n\n“(i) Under Section 148 of the Act, the issue of notice to the Assessee and\nservice of such notice upon the Assessee are jurisdictional requirements that\nmust be mandatorily complied with. They are not mere procedural\nrequirements.\n(ii) For the AO to exercise jurisdiction

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

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

reassessment order was required to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. The Revenue however has argued that its case is covered by the TOLA guidelines. Be that as it may be we of the view that in the interest of justice it would

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

reassessment order was required to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. The Revenue however has argued that its case is covered by the TOLA guidelines. Be that as it may be we of the view that in the interest of justice it would

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

reassessment order was required to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. The Revenue however has argued that its case is covered by the TOLA guidelines. Be that as it may be we of the view that in the interest of justice it would

SS74 SALEM STEEL PLANT EMPLOYEE CO-OP STORES LTD.,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1290/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1291/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1292/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1293/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2017-18

reassessment order was required to be passed within a period of nine months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was issued. The Revenue however has argued that its case is covered by the TOLA guidelines. Be that as it may be we of the view that in the interest of justice it would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

reassessment for AY 2010-11 and the assessment for AY 2012- 13 to AY 2014-15 were concluded after the search and the details of receipt of share capital from MJC and Enerk was accepted without any adjustment. The Transfer Pricing order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

249 ITR 795 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- "The High Court has answered the question saying that when section 79 speaks of loss, it does not include unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate. We agree with the High Court." In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Subhulaxmi Mills

K. RATHINAM,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-2(4), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:360/Chny/2025 धनधाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Rathinam, Income Tax Officer, 9, S N Layout, Vs. Non Corporate Ward - 2(4), Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 025. [Pan: Adspr-4055-P] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. Hence, an exparte order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.12.2019 was passed by the AO by rejecting the :-3-: ITA. No.:360/Chny/2025 income declared under Section 44AD of the Act and treated the sale of immovable property liable for long term capital gain by allowing the deduction of cost of acquisition with Cost inflation index. Aggrieved

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

reassessment order, had also placed reliance upon the judgment given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (340 ITR 477) dated 11.03.2010. Subsequently, SLP against the above judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.09.2016 (76 taxmann.com

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

249 placed\nat pages 60 to 70 of paper book and the decision of the Hon'ble High\nCourt of Delhi in the case of Escorts reported in 338 ITR 435 placed at\npages 71 to 84 of paper book for the proposition that if similar claims\nhave been allowed in the earlier assessment years, revisionary\nproceedings cannot be initiated

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee that repayments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

reassessment proceedings were initiated under\nSection 148 of the Act and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was\npassed on 24.03.2016 without any disallowance/addition.\n4.3 Search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the\nAct were carried out in the premises of the assessee in\nTamilnadu and Chhattisgarh on 23.11.2015, on 09.12.2015 and\nconcluded on 13.01.2016. During the search, certain documents\nwere