K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 50C. Thus there is no escapement warranting reassessment on any fresh material information but only change of opinion. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred treating the profit as short term capital gains while it was arising out of an adventure in the nature of trade. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming

QILIN SUPPORTERS,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), TIRUPUR

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.1275/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Qilin Supporters Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11, Kasturibai Street, Udumalpet, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur 642 126. Tirupur. [Pan: Aaafq2944D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Raised Vide Letter Dated 22.09.2025 & Submits That The Issue Of Questioning The Reopening As Legal Ground Can Be Raised At Any 2

1 of the assessment order and submits that the Assessing Officer clearly observed that the assessee’s case is reopened as the provision under section 50C of the Act is applicable on the basis of reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Further, he drew our attention to the notice dated 29.09.2020 issued under section

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

1) of the Act and this response has also been acknowledged in Paragraph 3 of the assessment order in Page 3 of the assessment order. It is only considering this submission; the Assessing officer has come to the conclusion that the assessee is not liable to pay capital gains as it has already been assessed in the hands

KALYANASUNDARAM BHARATH HARI,CHITTLAPAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX WARD 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

1), Chennai / DRP failed to appreciate that the procedure for conducting reassessment as laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in 259 ITR 19 were not followed on the facts off the present case thus vitiating the impugned order in its entirety. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and an NRI. During

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

reassessment order is not erroneous on the aspect of applying the provisions of Section 50C, when the same was not the subject matter of this proceedings and hence revising this order is outside the scope of Section 263, more particularly on the aspect of Section 50C. 5.4 From the detailing made above, the ld.AR submitted that it can be easily

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].

50C, the ld. CIT (A) has also failed to appreciate that merely because the guideline value was higher than sale consideration in the deed of conveyance, cannot be the sole reason for holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. With regard to applicability of Section 56, the ld. CIT (A) failed to consider

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.688/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2007-2008 M/S.Madras Race Club, The Deputy Commissioner Of Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Central Circle 1(2) Guindy, Chennai Chennai 600 032. Pan: Aaacm 7640R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit.

1. Hindustan lever Ltd v R.B.Wadekar, 268 ITR 339 (Bom) 2. Peninsula Land Ltd 439 ITR 582 (Bom) 3. Donaldson India Filter Systems P. Ltd–ITA-86/2014 dt.19.01.2015 (Del.) As the reasons for reopening first disclosed is without jurisdiction on the threshold itself, these further points considered in the course of the reassessment proceedings does not require consideration

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

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

1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals is contrary to law and 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 I.T.A. No. 1700/Chny/18 (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to note that

EDWIN SELVARAJ SUNDRARAJ,SALEM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(4), SALEM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 783/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 50C of the Act and considered 1/3rd share of the assessee which works out to Rs. 31,49,500/- and computed long term capital gain of Rs. 13,99,344/-. The AO, while arriving at income from capital gains has allowed relief to the extent of Rs. 5,58,321/-, towards capital gains admitted by the assessee

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

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

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

reassessment proceedings, statements were recorded from the assessee, his mother and sisters. The sisters categorically stated that they had received only their respective shares through demand drafts and that no cash was received by them. The Assessing Officer held that the entire alleged on-money of Rs.2,28,15,596/- was received by the assessee alone and brought the same

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

1,70,18,097/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 2.1 Against the appellate order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 “1.1 The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous, opposed

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

1,70,18,097/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 2.1 Against the appellate order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee has raised the following grounds: 3 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 “1.1 The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous, opposed

P.PANJURAJAN,SIVAKASI vs. DCIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai [CIT(A)] dated 20.11.2019 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief facts: The appellant is one of the promoters of M/s Sony Fireworks Group, which includes M/s Chindia Granities P Ltd, M/s Vinayaga Fireworks Industries etc. The appellant