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 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 50C of the Act. Accordingly notice u/s.148 dated 20.03.2014 was served on the assessee on 26.03.2014. According to ld.A.R, though the notice u/s.148 was served on the assessee within four years of end of relevant to assessment year, there was no tangible fresh material so as to reopen the concluded assessment. He submitted that at the time of original

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

reassessment\nproceedings. Such a reference can be made, whether or not, the\nassessing officer is satisfied about correctness or completeness of\naccounts of the assessee. In the event of such a reference being\nmade, the time consumed by the valuation officer gets excluded for the\npurposes of calculation of limitation period to complete the assessment.\nThe question that thus comes

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

147 of the Act on 27.03.2014 and determined total income of Rs. 16,45,420/- by making additions of Rs. 13,49,975/- towards computation of capital gains from sale of property by adopting full value of consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. :-4-: ITA. No: 3096/Chny/2019 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order

EDWIN SELVARAJ SUNDRARAJ,SALEM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(4), SALEM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 783/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on account of long term capital gain. The sum and substance of these grounds of appeal is that the appellant is aggrieved with the addition and has challenged on various accounts. The appellant has contested the application of section 50C of the IT Act by the ITO and has argued that fare market value

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

u/s 147 of the Act; 2.2 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having not been followed should have quashed the order of reassessment. 3.1 The CIT(A) ought to have held that no "transfer" took place during the year and hence assessment of capital gains is untenable

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

u/s 147 of the Act; 2.2 The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having not been followed should have quashed the order of reassessment. 3.1 The CIT(A) ought to have held that no "transfer" took place during the year and hence assessment of capital gains is untenable

BALASUBRAMANIAN ADITYAN LEGAL HEIR OF DR. B SIVANTHI ADITYAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1700/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Balasubramanian Adityan, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, Income Tax, No. 6, E.V.K. Sampath Road, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vepery, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aampa7576R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Advocate For Shri Pmn Bhagavath Krishnan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.02.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. In The Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. Reassessment Made Us 147: (I) The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Reassessment Made U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2

u/s 147 of the Income tax Act. 1961. 2 I.T.A. No. 1700/Chny/18 (ii) The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals failed to note that the reassessment has been made without adhering to the provisions off Sec 159 of the Income tax Act. 1961. (iii) The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals had erred in relying on the order

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

reassessment order is not erroneous on the aspect of applying the provisions of Section 50C, when the same was not the subject matter of this proceedings and hence revising this order is outside the scope of Section 263, more particularly on the aspect of Section 50C. 5.4 From the detailing made above, the ld.AR submitted that it can be easily

KALYANASUNDARAM BHARATH HARI,CHITTLAPAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX WARD 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

50C and within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for a sum Rs.29,20,000/-. Therefore, for the year under consideration, the assessee had undervalued his inform from long term capital gains out of the above said transactions and provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to sec.147 are applicable to facts of this case

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13. Abdul Lathief Mohammed Arif (Vs.) ITO Ward 5(2) :: 2 :: 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee. He filed his original return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 26.07.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.9

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

section 40A(2) of the Act. The provisions\nof Section 40A(2) of the Act, deals with disallowance of excessive or\nunreasonable payments made by an assessee to related parties. The\nsection allows the AO to scrutinize payments made to specific persons or\nentities related to the assessee, to ensure that such payments are not\nexcessive or unreasonable compared