SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 80- 1A of the Act scrupulously, the denial of such claim in the computation sheet annexed to the search assessment order Is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 24. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the assessment order under consideration was passed out of lime, Invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 80- 1A of the Act scrupulously, the denial of such claim in the computation sheet annexed to the search assessment order Is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 24. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the assessment order under consideration was passed out of lime, Invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts

SG WIND FAARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

Section 80- 1A of the Act scrupulously, the denial of such claim in the computation sheet annexed to the search assessment order Is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 24. The CIT(Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the assessment order under consideration was passed out of lime, Invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

63,795/- as its undisclosed income and failed to initiate penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order dated 25.03.2022 had only initiated penalty u/s. 270A of the Act for underreporting of income to the tune of Rs.32,25,627/- (addition made by Assessing Officer) in consequence of misreporting

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

63 (Ker), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction under section

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

63 (Ker), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction under section

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

63 (Ker), the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment on the ground that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction under section

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

reassessment order dated 25.03.2021 passed under section 147 of the Act and thus, ground No. 3 (3.1 to 3.7) raised by the assessee on merits become academic. 60. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed. I.T.A. No. 1670/Chny/2024 for AY 2018-19 61. Ground No. 1(1.1 & 1.2) raised by the assessee

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

ARUNACHALAM SRINIVASAN,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment are to be examined on a ‘stand-alone’ basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor any thing can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 have, inter alia, held “it is needless to mention that the reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. A. SRINIVASAN, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment are to be examined on a ‘stand-alone’ basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor any thing can be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 332 have, inter alia, held “it is needless to mention that the reasons

K V TEX FIRM,CHENNAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

reassessment. The phrase "to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act' would mean that the restriction provided in Section 144B of the Act, such as keeping the International Tax Jurisdiction or Central Circle Jurisdiction out of the ambit of Section 144B of the Act would also apply under the Scheme. Further the exceptions

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

reassessment proceedings as being barred by period of limitation. Ld.Counsel further contended that additional grounds are legal grounds which goes to the root of matter and does not require investigation into or examination of any new facts or evidence and were available before the Dispute Resolution Panel and AO. 5. The ld.Counsel has referred case laws citation to support

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the ITA No. 1036/Mds/2016. :- 16 -: Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue. In Bawa Abhai Singh’s case [2002] 253 ITR 83 (Delhi), a Division Bench of this court

N.BALADANDAYUDAM, REP BY POWER HOLDER R.RAVICHANDRAN ,ERODE vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2) , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-2011 is allowed whereas as those for assessment years

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact

N.BALADANDAYUDAM, REP BY POWER HOLDER R.RAVICHANDRAN ,ERODE vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2) , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-2011 is allowed whereas as those for assessment years

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of the proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice under section 148, he accepted the contention of the assessee and holds that the income which he has initially formed a reason to believe had escaped assessment, has as a matter of fact

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result