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

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment proceedings on the following counts: (i) Lack of jurisdiction in issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act; (ii) Improper service of notice u/s 148 on an incorrect email ID; and (iii) Absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order. However, since the detailed arguments were also addressed on merits by the parties, we first proceed

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment proceedings on the following counts: (i) Lack of jurisdiction in issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act; (ii) Improper service of notice u/s 148 on an incorrect email ID; and (iii) Absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order. However, since the detailed arguments were also addressed on merits by the parties, we first proceed

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

u/s 147 of the Act.\n12. Recently, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of\nACIT Vs Seshasayee Paper and Board Ltd [2023] taxmann.com 432\n(Madras): 455 ITR 291 (Madras) held as under:\n8. We find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the\nlearned Single Judge warranting interference for the following\nreasons

POSHAK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

251(1) (a). 3. Limitation:- 3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the order u/s. 154 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation since four years have expired from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed as per section

THE KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. CIT (APPEALS), -

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

Section 246 of the act entails that “any assessee aggrieved” by the order of the Ld. AO passed under different statutory provisions of the act including u/s 147, possess a right to contest the impugned order by which it is “aggrieved”. The word “aggrieved” order would mean an order which causes an injury or harm to the taxpayer

THE KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. CIT (APPEALS), -

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

Section 246 of the act entails that “any assessee aggrieved” by the order of the Ld. AO passed under different statutory provisions of the act including u/s 147, possess a right to contest the impugned order by which it is “aggrieved”. The word “aggrieved” order would mean an order which causes an injury or harm to the taxpayer

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act cannot be\ninvoked. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to rebut the\nassessee's explanation. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,54,63,996/- sustained\nby the Id. CIT(A) u/s.69 of the Act is deleted.\nIn the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n13. ITA No.1639/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 – Department

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act cannot be\ninvoked. The Revenue has not brought any material on record to rebut the\nassessee's explanation. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.1,54,63,996/- sustained\nby the Id. CIT(A) u/s.69 of the Act is deleted.\nIn the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.\n13. ITA No.1639/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2015-16 – Department

THARMARAJ GOPI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.682/Chny/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tharmaraj Gopi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.1, Bharathidasan 1St Street, Non-Corp Ward-8(2), Kandasamy Nagar, Chennai. Poonamallee, Chennai-600 056. [Pan: Akqpg3889D]

u/s. 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for reason for failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly on material facts necessary for the assessment. He further relied upon the judgments of the various Hon’ble High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

147, however, remain the same." 9. We, therefore concur with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that this is a case of change in opinion, which is permissible as per law. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In view of the above, we find that the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

147, however, remain the same." 9. We, therefore concur with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that this is a case of change in opinion, which is permissible as per law. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In view of the above, we find that the facts and circumstances

RAMANATHAN ADAIKALAVAN,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

251 Sale consideration for land : Rs.3,87,00,000 minus indexed cost of land Rs. 8,69,749 Assessed LTCG 33,48,356 Short levy of Tax on 78,48,356 Rs.3,44,81,895 * 20% SC @ LTCG 10% EC @ 3%. 2. STCG in r/s Hotel Building 2,91,39,180 Sale consideration of the building : Rs.2

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

u/s 24 of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.57,43,956/- is\nheld to be rental advance received from the said party. Hence, the AO is directed to delete the\naddition to the tune of Rs. 1,30,18,054/- & Rs.57.43,956/-and thereafter consider the amount\nof Rs.1,30,18,054/- as gross rental receipts from house

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

reassessment proceedings have been examined and answered through the queries raised in the notice u/s 143(2) dated 24-01-2014. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that reopening assessment beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid as there is no failure on the part