HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment proceedings for the A.Y.2008-09. The appeal is dismissed.” Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee argued and took us through the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of assessment, which are enclosed in assessee

FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD.,HOSUR vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings, even if one were to say that such enquiry was inadequate, the same cannot be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It is a settled principle that there is a distinction between "lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action under

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.

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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.

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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)

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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 ()

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]\n26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects\n(P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co.\nLtd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of\ninvoking jurisdiction under Section

FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 393/Ch/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Fls Automation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

482(Bom) held as under in the head note: “The sine qua non for issue of a notice for reopening of assessments even within a period of less than four years from the end of the assessment year, is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and this belief should be on the basis of tangible material, otherwise

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)

reassessment order properly to the best of his ability. Section 114(f) of the evidence Act says: ‘The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case

M/S. REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

482/- and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.11.2011 determining income `29,58,43,681/- Later it laws noticed by the AO that the assessee deducted a sum of `1,35,99,036/- being loss on sale of shares from the total income. It was also noticed by the AO that while calculating the eligible deduction

M/S. REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari]

482/- and the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.11.2011 determining income `29,58,43,681/- Later it laws noticed by the AO that the assessee deducted a sum of `1,35,99,036/- being loss on sale of shares from the total income. It was also noticed by the AO that while calculating the eligible deduction

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI vs. RATHINAM PRABAKARAN, KARUR

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Rathinam Prabakaran, Income Tax, Vs. 39, Narasimmapuram North, Central Circle-2(3), Karur - 639 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipp 4501B]

reassessment proceeding explained that he has not advanced any loan to Shri Seetharaman during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2015-16 in his individual capacity and Shri Seetharaman has already offered the loan amount in his hand before the Hon’ble IT Settlement Commission. However, the A.O did not accept the assessee’s explanation and noted that Shri Seetharaman

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI DURAI GUNASEKARAN(L/H REP LATE MS.DURAI AMSAVENI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by three different assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

482/-. The AO denied exemption and completed the assessment by bringing this amount to tax being the share of the assessee received on sale of land under the head long term capital gains. The assessee before Assessing Officer raised the issue on jurisdiction vide letter dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant letter is reproduced in the assessment order reads as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI DURAI GUNASEKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by three different assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

482/-. The AO denied exemption and completed the assessment by bringing this amount to tax being the share of the assessee received on sale of land under the head long term capital gains. The assessee before Assessing Officer raised the issue on jurisdiction vide letter dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant letter is reproduced in the assessment order reads as under

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI V. DURAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by three different assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

482/-. The AO denied exemption and completed the assessment by bringing this amount to tax being the share of the assessee received on sale of land under the head long term capital gains. The assessee before Assessing Officer raised the issue on jurisdiction vide letter dated 09.12.2019 and the relevant letter is reproduced in the assessment order reads as under

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)

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]” :-11-: ITA. No:951 TO 959/Chny/2025 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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)

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]” :-11-: ITA. No:951 TO 959/Chny/2025 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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)

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]” :-11-: ITA. No:951 TO 959/Chny/2025 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section

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)

482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied]” :-11-: ITA. No:951 TO 959/Chny/2025 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section