DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. MAHESWARA SUGARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 143(3) on 25.03.2008 determining a loss of (-)Rs 2,79,26,240/-. A sum of Rs 6,38,22,436/- and Rs 20,15,02,830/- was determined as unabsorbed business loss and Depreciation respectively from the A.Y. 1999-2000 to 2006-07, and allowed to be carried forward for set off from future income. The assessee company

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso." 4.7 Thus, following the above principles laid down by The Honourable Supreme Court, it is concluded that the Assessing Officer acted like a reasonable person for arriving at a "reason" of escaped income on the basis of survey proceedings conducted, during the course of which

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

292 ITR 49 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court, following the above Supreme Court judgment, considered the scope of provision of Sections 139 and 147 of the Act and held as follows: 16 "Applying this line of decisions to the facts of the present case, the inescapable conclusion that would have to be reached is that while assessment proceedings remain inchoate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

147, 148 and 149 of\nthe Act from the corresponding Section 34 of the 1922 Act, the legal\nrequirement of service of notice upon the Assessee in terms of Section 148\nwith Section 282 (1) and Section 153 read (2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-\ncondition to finalizing the reassessment.\n(iv) The onus is on the Revenue

MANOJ KUMAR DUGAR,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

292 (Mad) and 476 ITR 193 Mad) holding that reassessment beyond four years is bad in law when there is no failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is undisputed that the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 22.03.2016. The notice u/s

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act.\n\n21. All the above reasons are fully supported

LATE SH SETHURAMAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH S NISHAANTH ,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by legal representative of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2615/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Late Shri Sethuraman The Assistant (Rep. By Legal Heir Commissioner Of Income Shri S. Nishaanth), Vs. Tax, O 9/12, Subbarayan Street, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Abhps 3001R (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 14.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Dated 16.03.2023 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act') For The Assessment Year 2015-16 (Hereinafter The "Ay").

u/s. 148 of the Act and subsequent ex-parte assessment u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act have been passed in the name of deceased, hence, proceeding arises there from are vitiated. The assessee died on 17.12.2015 as is evident from his death certificate placed on record at page 1 of the paper book

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

292 of the Act is categorical and clear.\nThe notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according\nto the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to\nlimitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of\nthe Act.\n21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

292 of the Act is categorical and clear.\nThe notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according\nto the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to\nlimitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of\nthe Act.\n21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

292 of the Act is categorical and clear. The notice has to be, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. Undoubtedly, the issue relating to limitation is not a curable defect for the Revenue to invoke Section 292B of the Act. 21. All the above reasons are fully supported

JAYA CHANDRA RAJAN,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 1 TIRUNELVEL, TIRUNELVEL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms\nabove

292 days in filing appeal before the\nTribunal which is based upon the reasonable cause (Medical\nCertificate attached) and admit the same for adjudication.\n2.1 At the outset, Id.AR for the assessee pointed out G.No.2 which\nstates that in this case the jurisdictional assessing officer ('JAO' in\nshort) has issue notice u/s148 dated 07.04.2022 of the Act. Ld.AR\nalso

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

147 dated 07.02.2014. It is the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) on this sum of ". 102 lacs, levied at 100 per cent of the tax sought to be evaded, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. While the assessee insists that her action in filing the ‘revised return’ was done only to purchase peace with

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion of dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the order of the Assessing officer

SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

Appeals of the revenue stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.74/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.75/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.76/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.77/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.78/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Acit बनाम/ 21 Patullos Road Large Taxpayer Unit, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.287 & 288/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.289 & 290/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.291/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2008-09) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.292/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.293/Chny/2015 (िनधाEरण वषE / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Acit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd., बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit, 21 Patullos Road Vs. Chennai. Chennai – 600002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Ajeet- Ld. Cit-Dr

section 176(3A) as income of discontinued business. Additional Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in coming to the conclusion of dismissing the Appellant's appeal against the order of the Assessing officer