DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. MAHESWARA SUGARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

292 4 2002-03 - 3,30,61,263 3,30,61,263 5 2003-04 - 2,56,06,140 2,

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

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

292 ITR 49 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court, following the above Supreme Court judgment, considered the scope of provision of Sections 139 and 147 of the Act and held as follows: 16 "Applying this line of decisions to the facts of the present case, the inescapable conclusion that would have to be reached is that while assessment proceedings remain inchoate

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings are held to be valid in law 4.12 Further, in the factual matrix as available, there is no requirement for the Assessing Officer to invoke section 163 of the Act. as CB & I Lummus Mauritius is a created structure to avoid tax and is not a distinct legal entity. The same would be discussed in the later part

LATE SH SETHURAMAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH S NISHAANTH ,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by legal representative of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Late Shri Sethuraman The Assistant (Rep. By Legal Heir Commissioner Of Income Shri S. Nishaanth), Vs. Tax, O 9/12, Subbarayan Street, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Abhps 3001R (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 14.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act') For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Hereinafter The "Ay").

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

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

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

MARAPPAN BALASUBRAMANIAM (DECEASED), REP BY LEGAL HEIR KAVITHA BALASUBRAMANIAN (WIFE),KARUVALLUR ROAD, COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3367/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Marappan Balasubramaniam, V. The Ito, Ward 1(2), (Deceased), Tiruppur, Rep By Legal Heir Kavitha Tamil Nadu Balasubramanian (Wife) No. 5, Cormo Garden, Karuvallur Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641107 [Pan: Cqgpg 6518 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue Marappan Balasubramanian Vs ITO W 1(2), Tiruppur :: 5 :: relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B

THAMBURAJ BERNET MARY JAYASEELI,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD2(1), CHENNAI, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, 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.2722/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1997-98 M/S. Tamil Nadu Cements The Assistant Commissioner Of Corporation Limited, No. 735, Vs. Income Tax, Lla Building, Anna Salai, Company Circle Iii(1), Chennai 600 002. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aabct1819J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 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) 11, Chennai Dated 08.07.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 1997-98. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment For The Assessment Year 1997-98 Was Completed On 13.03.2000 & Reassessment Was Completed On 31.03.2005 & Subsequently Revised On 31.10.2005. In Its Original Return Of Income, The Assessee Has 2

section 115JA of the Act was ₹.5,16,13,292/-. In the course of the reassessment, the Assessing Officer set off brought

PONMANI SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1011/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Ponmani Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.12A, New No.24, V. Income-Tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non Corporate Ward-2, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. Pan Aalpp7516R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 292 BB cannot be helped to the Department. He prayed to quash the assessment . 6. On the other hand, ld.D.R submitted that there is no protest by the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings and the assessee actively participated during the course of assessment proceedings, now the assessee raised such ground before this Tribunal, which

JAYA CHANDRA RAJAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 1 TIRUNELVEL, TIRUNELVEL

292 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal which is based upon the reasonable cause (Medical Certificate attached) and admit the same for adjudication. 2.1 At the outset, Id.AR for the assessee pointed out G.No.2 which states that in this case the jurisdictional assessing officer ('JAO' in short) has issue notice u/s148 dated 07.04.2022 of the Act. Ld.AR also

MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

292 (Mad) and 476 ITR 193 Mad) holding that reassessment beyond four years is bad in law when there is no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is undisputed that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 22.03.2016. The notice

AURO FOOD P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment proceedings should be quashed. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, notice under section 115WH(3) of the Act was issued on 22.03.2013, which is well within the time

AURO FOOD P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment proceedings should be quashed. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, notice under section 115WH(3) of the Act was issued on 22.03.2013, which is well within the time

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

reassessing the evidence on record has also taken the view that there was only one source of income and that source was of letting out the premises to the tenants. Mr. Manchanda contended, and the High Court has accepted that contention, that the authorities under the Act have not properly construed the lease deeds nor have they properly appreciated