SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

natural justice is nullity in law. 17. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.” 4 Shri. R. Panneerselvam AY: 2008-09 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from rental and business of running hotel in the name of Hotel Rohini International and Hotel Sri Rohini

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

u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied on by the AO and AR. In this case the return had only been processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and no assessment

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

u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied on by the AO and AR. In this case the return had only been processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and no assessment

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

u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied on by the AO and AR. In this case the return had only been processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and no assessment

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

u/s 147 of the 1961 Act , by holding as under: “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld.AR. I have also gone through the decisions and the circular relied on by the AO and AR. In this case the return had only been processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and no assessment

TYSPL 100 ANDIMADAM PACCS LIMITED, ANDIMADAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Tyspl 100 Andimadam Paccs Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-1, Udiyarpalayam, Ariyalur, Kumbakonam. Perambalur, Tamil Nadu-621 801. [Pan: Aacat7731L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : G.Reddi Prakash, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Krishna Kumar Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

SYED BATHRUDEEN MOHIDEEN AWLIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1308/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Syed Bathrudeen Mohideen Income Tax Officer, Awliya, Non-Corp Ward-19(6), No.8/13-C Kamaraj Nagar, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Pallavaram, Chennai-600 043. [Pan: Axrpm7549Q] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.S.Sonali & Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, Advocates. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

MANIMALA,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2102/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Manimala Income Tax Officer, 50A Saint Simone Pet, Ward-3, Muthialpet, Pondicherry Pondicherry-605 003. [Pan: Baspm8411L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Suraj Nahar, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

ORUVANDUR PACB LTD,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD 2, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2117/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Oruvandur Pacb Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Orunvandur Po, Ward-2, Namakkal, Namakkal Tamil Nadu-637015, [Pan: Aaaao0407C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

VENUGOPAL RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 19(6)M CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2121/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Venugopal Ravichandran Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.7, Bhavani Street, Non Corp Ward-19(6), Bharathi Nagar, Tharamani, Ttti, Chennai. Taramani S.O, Taramani, Chennai-600 113. [Pan: Adypr7701G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman,Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Saujanya Ranjan, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 9.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

NEELAM DEVI GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ITO WARD-ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1310/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Neelam Devi Gupta, Income Tax Officer, No.J-502, Safal Parivesh, Che-W-(65)(11). Prahladnagar, Chennai. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-380 015. [Pan: Acypg4898C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : None प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.V.Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

MRS. ROOPA RATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1707/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Mrs.Roopa Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Door No.1, Damodar Murthy Street, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Ajapr6077R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Hitesh, Advocate For Mr.D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment notice in this specific instance. While doing so the Hon’ble High Court had distinguished the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. 8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “…..2. Learned

EKAMBARAM ELUMALAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment notice issued by\nthe JAO was deemed invalid and quashed. The Revenue had\nargued that both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and\nthe Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) had concurrent jurisdiction\nin issuing such notices. However, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court\ndisagreed, ruling that the JAO lacked the authority to issue the\nreassessment notice in this specific instance. While

SHRI GOPAL YADEV SELVA KUMAR,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD-2, VELLORE

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Gopal Yadav Selva Kumar, V. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Vellore Main Road, Ward-2, 1St Street, Arcot, Vellore-632 503. Vellore. [Pan: Btsps 5973 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2022

natural justice. (3) The impugned Reassessment is only based on audit objections of the department and hence ill-founded and liable to be quashed. (i) The ITO has informed in his letter dated 18/11/2014 the reasons for impugned reassessment which are purportedly based on the audit objections raised by the audit party of the Department and not because

EMPEE HOLDINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

justice would be nullity in law. 8. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for impugned ay: 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 returning a loss of `4,98,660/-. The assessment was framed by AO u/s.143

THINGAL OLI MANIMEKALAI,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THANJAVUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment notice in this specific\ninstance. While doing so the Hon'ble High Court had distinguished the\norder of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court.\n8.0 We have also noted with reverence the decision of Hon'ble Madras High\nCourt dated 24.06.2025 in WP No.22402. In the impugned decision the\nHon'ble High Court has held as under

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated Ground merely on the basis of Audit objection. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in reopening the assessment of Technical assessee u/s 147 of the Act without there being any Ground new tangible material on record to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deleting

M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated Ground merely on the basis of Audit objection. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in reopening the assessment of Technical assessee u/s 147 of the Act without there being any Ground new tangible material on record to come to conclusion that there is escapement of income. 9. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not deleting