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

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 5.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after insertion of Explanation

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. 4

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. 4

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

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

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

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

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

4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under Section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees Of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust Vs. Commissioner

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.

249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 and as a result the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and such proceedings conducted by the Ld. AO is barred

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

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

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

249 ITR 216 (SC). 5. Further, the Ld.AR drew our attention to Ground Nos.7 to 15 and submitted that the assessee filed return of income on 27.11.2003 admitting an income of Rs.1,14,84,108/- and later filed the revised return on 01.11.2004 admitting ‘NIL’ income. The AO noted that the reason for filing the revised return

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

249 ITR 216 (SC). 5. Further, the Ld.AR drew our attention to Ground Nos.7 to 15 and submitted that the assessee filed return of income on 27.11.2003 admitting an income of Rs.1,14,84,108/- and later filed the revised return on 01.11.2004 admitting ‘NIL’ income. The AO noted that the reason for filing the revised return

BHARAT TECHNOLOGIES AUTO COMPONENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

249 ITR 216 (SC). 5. Further, the Ld.AR drew our attention to Ground Nos.7 to 15 and submitted that the assessee filed return of income on 27.11.2003 admitting an income of Rs.1,14,84,108/- and later filed the revised return on 01.11.2004 admitting ‘NIL’ income. The AO noted that the reason for filing the revised return

ACIT, NAGERCOIL vs. SHRI J. RAJ PRABHU, NAGERCOIL

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassess any issue relevant to income which comes to is notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such Issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. 47.4 Applicability - This amendment has been made applicable with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989 and will apply

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

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

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim