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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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

u/s 148 was issued’’. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had filed a letter dated 12.11.2010 which stated as under:- Date: 12/11/2010 To The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(I), Chennai - 34 Sub:!T Assessment - AY 08-09 Ref Notice u/s.143(2) dated 12.08.2009 Dear Sir, Further to our appearance before your goodself

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)

254 Taxman 81, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd vs. JCIT, 253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing

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)

254 Taxman 81, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd vs. JCIT, 253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing

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)

254 Taxman 81, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd vs. JCIT, 253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing

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)

254 Taxman 81, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ankit Agrochem (P) Ltd vs. JCIT, 253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated on 31.12.2019 for the AY(s) 1995-96 and 1996-97 are quashed (As held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai as discussed supra) an all the grounds raised upon this issue for the AY(s) 1995-96 and 1996-97 are hereby allowed. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated on 31.12.2019 for the AY(s) 1995-96 and 1996-97 are quashed (As held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai as discussed supra) an all the grounds raised upon this issue for the AY(s) 1995-96 and 1996-97 are hereby allowed. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal

THE MADRAS SEVA SADAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1246/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 The Madras Seva Sadan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.7, Shenstone Park, Income Tax (Exemption), Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaatt2871J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional interest payable to such assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing Officer in accordance with and subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of section 245 and ending 4[with

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.

u/s 144C(5) dated 29.11.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ‘’1. Ground 1-General Hyundai Transys INC ('Hyundai INC' or 'the Appellant') submits that the assessment order ('the order') dated 12 December 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s 147