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

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable

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

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable

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

1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

1-\np.g 196\nLedger copy\nPaper book 5\np.g 393-394\nHi-fashions\nKushpath\nD jain\nΑΕΑΡΑ7814A\nRs.21,00,000/-\n(Dr)\nRs.21,00,000/-\n(Dr)\nSubsequently\nPayment was\nmade in AY\n2019-20 and the\nbalance in the\nledger NIL as on\ntoday\nConfirmation\nPaper book 1-\np.g 198\nLedger copy\nPaper book 5\np.g

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

1-\np.g 196\nLedger copy\nPaper book 5\np.g 393-394\n4.\nHi-fashions\nKushpath\nD jain\nΑΕΑΡΑ7814A\nRs.21,00,000/-\n(Dr)\nRs.21,00,000/-\n(Dr)\nSubsequently\nPayment was\nmade in AY\n2019-20 and the\nbalance in the\nledger NIL as on\ntoday\nConfirmation\nPaper book 1-\np.g 198\nLedger copy\nPaper book 5\np.g

POSHAK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

251(1) (a). 3. Limitation:- 3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the order u/s. 154 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation since four years have expired from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed as per section

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

251(1)(a) of the Act. The declaration of law is clear that the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is coterminus with that of the Income Tax Officer, if that be so, there appears to be no reason as to why the appellate authority cannot modify the assessment order on an additional ground even if not raised before

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN REP. BY LEGAL HEIR S SUNDARAM,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

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

251(1)(a), and even otherwise, the same cannot be undertaken , without bringing to the notice of the assessee. :-6-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 14. The ld.AR pushed his cause, by emphasizing that the addition is not sustainable when the books of account were omitted to be rejected by the AO as per section

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

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

251(1)(a), and even otherwise, the same cannot be undertaken , without bringing to the notice of the assessee. :-6-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025 14. The ld.AR pushed his cause, by emphasizing that the addition is not sustainable when the books of account were omitted to be rejected by the AO as per section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

1,54,63,996/-, which according to the\nassessee, was also unsustainable in law and on facts. The Id. AR contended that\neven the said amount represented investments in shares made in earlier years\nand duly reflected in the books of account. It was argued that all relevant\ndocumentary evidence substantiating the source and timing of such investments\nhad been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment is invalid on account of “change of opinion”. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue fails and it is dismissed. 13. Now, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 818/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 7 I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/24 14. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The appellant-Revenue filed an affidavit stating reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

reassessment is invalid on account of “change of opinion”. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue fails and it is dismissed. 13. Now, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 818/Chny/2024 for adjudication. 7 I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/24 14. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The appellant-Revenue filed an affidavit stating reasons

P.P.FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

reassess the\nincome of the other person in accordance with the provisions\nof section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books\nof account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a\n\nbearing on the determination of the total income of such other\nperson for six assessment years immediately preceding the\n assessment year relevant

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

reassess the\nincome of the other person in accordance with the provisions\nof section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books\nof account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a\nITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others\nMr. P. Palanisamy\nM/s. P.P. Financiers\nMr. P. Kuppuchamy\nMr. L. Karuppusamy\nM/s. P.P. Enterprises\nMr. Palanisamy Raghupathy\nM/s. P.P. Constructions

SUDHA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

reassessment was completed, inter alia, making addition of ₹.30,00,000/- towards unexplained investment, under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. We note that out of total investment of ₹.65,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer treated only a sum of ₹.30,00,000/- as unexplained investment. 4. Having aggrieved by the order

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment proceedings were legally initiated was not kept open. Even on the third question the Tribunal's view was erroneous that even though this point went to the root of the jurisdiction and was a pure question of law, merely because the point was initially raised and not pressed when the matter was taken up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner