SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said [sub-sections (1),\n(1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months.\n(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous\ninsofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act cannot be applied. He further submitted that the assessm He further submitted that the assessment order lacked any detailed ent order lacked any detailed discussion on the impugned issue and that the AO did not record any discussion on the impugned issue and that the AO did not record any discussion on the impugned issue

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 263 of the Act cannot be applied. He further submitted that the assessm He further submitted that the assessment order lacked any detailed ent order lacked any detailed discussion on the impugned issue and that the AO did not record any discussion on the impugned issue and that the AO did not record any discussion on the impugned issue

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

reassessment order was not justified. Grounds related to provisions for diminution in the value of investments were also discussed.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "10(38)", "263

ST.JOSEPH'S EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

section 263 of the Act, ie. the order of the Ld. AO shall be 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue', are not satisfied. 2.2. The Id. CIT erred in concluding that the reassessment

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were validly sanctioned as per Section 151 of the Act, and if not, whether the revisionary order passed under Section 263

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

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

reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 4[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2),\n(3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months.\n(5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section\n262 or section 263

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

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

reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction on the basis of the law as it stood when the proceedings were initiated. :-24-: ITA. No.:1018/Chny/2025 8. Apart from the language of Section 263

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)

263 of the Act dated 22.02.2023 (para 4 supra); iii. The ld. CIT cannot sit in appeal on the reassessment order 23.03.2023 reversing findings of the AO and impose his own view of decision making process on same material; iv. There is legal presumption as per Section

SAINULAPTHEEN KATHEEJA UMMA,KANYAKUKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, , NAGERCOIL

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.264/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25/72, B.O.C. Street, Marthandam Ward – 2, Post, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. Tamil Nadu 629 165. [Pan:Avopk8733F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 05.05.2020 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 662 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

Section 263 of the Act was wholly erroneous. 24. As noticed above, the Assessing Officer while completing the reassessment proceedings

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

section 263 of the Act, reassessment order is deemed to\nbe erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

LATE P.S.ULAGARAKSHAGAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT-3, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.249/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late P.S. Ulagarakshagan Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Ambika U, L/H Of Ulagarakshagan, Income Tax-3, No. 4, Anushya Street, Nagarjuna Chennai – 34. Nagar, 2Nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaipu8947Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – 3, Chennai Dated 11.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 263 of the act which required that before proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice must be served

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings were initiated against the dead person, that too, after a long delay. The Court pointed out that even if the provisions of Section 159 of the Act are attracted, in that case also, the notice was required to be issued against and in the name of the heirs of the deceased assessee and under the said circumstances, Section