ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer 22[or the Transfer\nPricing Officer, as the case may be,] 23wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh\nassessment or reassessment

THE MADRAS SEVA SADAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1246/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 The Madras Seva Sadan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.7, Shenstone Park, Income Tax (Exemption), Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaatt2871J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

254 ITR 158 (Mad.) and he also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v.Keshrimal Parasmal reported in [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj.) to assail the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act to interfere with the initiation of penalty by the AO in the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 when the Tribunal has already held that the assessment 7 I.T.A. Nos. 1422 & 1423/Chny/23 order passed under section 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 when the Tribunal has already held that the assessment 7 I.T.A. Nos. 1422 & 1423/Chny/23 order passed under section 158BC r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment is bad in law. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 14/10/2010 declaring total income at Rs.223,16,20,742/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of tractors and engines. Subsequently, assessment proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) on 26/03/2013 assessing total

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment is bad in law. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 14/10/2010 declaring total income at Rs.223,16,20,742/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of tractors and engines. Subsequently, assessment proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) on 26/03/2013 assessing total

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment is bad in law. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a company, filed its return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 14/10/2010 declaring total income at Rs.223,16,20,742/-. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of tractors and engines. Subsequently, assessment proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) on 26/03/2013 assessing total

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.

section 151 of the Act’’. 4. Ld.Counsel submitted that by additional ground, appellant is challenging the reassessment proceedings as being barred by period of limitation. Ld.Counsel further contended that additional grounds are legal grounds which goes to the root of matter and does not require investigation into or examination of any new facts or evidence and were available before

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

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

PONDICHERRY AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORARE WARD-5(2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pondicherry Agro Foods P Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.1B, 1St Floor, Arihant Jashn, Vs. Corporate Ward -5(2), Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Chennai. 38 (Old 121), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaacp 4418N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

254 of the IT Act, 1961 for dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant without controverting the submissions made by the Appellant in the Paper Book submitted in the course of hearing proceedings. 7. The Assessing authority and the First Appellate Authority have brushed aside the facts of the case as the proceedings have been relating to the Assessment Year

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

reassessment order passed under section the same is hence partly set aside, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate fresh assessment order within the stipulated time after making necessary enquiries as per the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, after providing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.” Aggrieved by the order of the ld.PCIT u/s.263

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

reassessment order passed under section the same is hence partly set aside, with the direction to the Assessing Officer to pass appropriate fresh assessment order within the stipulated time after making necessary enquiries as per the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, after providing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.” Aggrieved by the order of the ld.PCIT u/s.263

BALASUBRAMANIAN ADITYAN LEGAL HEIR OF DR. B SIVANTHI ADITYAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1700/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Balasubramanian Adityan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, Income Tax, No. 6, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aampa7576R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri Pmn Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Reassessment Made Us 147: (I) The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Made U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2

reassessment made on the appellant, which is inapplicable to the facts of the case., The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to note that the in the facts of the appellant's case the original notice was served on the dead person. 3. Merits of the case: valuation for the purpose of levy of capital gains tax: (i) The Commissioner

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

254 (Hyderabad - Trib.):\nShare premium received from non-residents can neither be assessed under Section 56(1) or 56(2)(viib).\n7.5.18 I have considered the order of the AO and the submissions made by the assessee. The general scheme of the Income tax Act is that only revenue receipts have to be taxed; capital receipts cannot be taxed unless

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the grounds raised by the assessee by way of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

254 of the Act vide order dated 08.03.2021, determining total income at Rs.28,34,01,206/-. 14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who, vide impugned appellate order dated 14.03.2025, partly allowed the appeal. 15. The Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.6,74,26,047/- made on account

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

section 37(1) of the Act by the learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals). 010. 011. Fact shows that the assessee has debited the above sum to the profit and loss account and claimed as allowable. The Assessing Officer questioned the same and assessee submitted that the above claims are incurred on account of the contractual obligations between the insurance