MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

548 to 552/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 PAN: AHOPM-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

548 to 552/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 PAN: AHOPM-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

548 to 552/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 PAN: AHOPM-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT सुनवाई क" तारीख

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued on the basis of definite information from CBI regarding investments by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued on the basis of definite information from CBI regarding investments by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

section 147 and, therefore, such initiation was sustained. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Rama Sinha v. CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued on the basis of definite information from CBI regarding investments by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

548/-. The credit appearing in the books of accounts of assessee is not explained, therefore ,it would have been covered u/s.68, after allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain being difference in opening balances for assessment year 2006-07. (b) Figures for opening balance of loan given for assessment year 2006-07 has been increased

P.SUNDARARAJAN,AVANASHI vs. DCIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain precondition and if the concept of 'change of opinion' is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of 'change of opinion' as an in-built test to check abuse of power

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.11.2017, which is beyond four years, without mentioning any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides relying upon various case

TMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The Acit, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [Pan: Aaact 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

548 Dehi, their Lordships have held that if in the regular assessment, the issue for which the re-opening is being resorted to has been looked into by the AO, then, in such an event, the AO shouldn’t re-visit the same on the pretext that a binding decision has been overlooked [refer para 3]; and further pointed

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A. JAGADEESWARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No. 30/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.245/Mds/2017) Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, Vs The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 20.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

548 (Nagpur) held in the context of Section 80HH and 80 J that there was no provision either in Section 80HH or 80J for withdrawal of special deduction for CO No. 30/Mds/2017 the subsequent years for breach of certain conditions. Once the relief was confirmed for earlier years, the Income tax Officer could not withhold the relief for subsequent years

AALAYA JEWEL INDUSTRY PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P George

548/- under MAT provisions. Since the assessee had international transactions to the tune of `50.72 croes, a reference was made by the ld. Assessing Officer to the TPO u/s.92CA of the Act. The TPO vide its order dated 10.10.2016 recommended a Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment of `2,57,04,337/-. A Draft assessment order based on TPO recommendations was proposed