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

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 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

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

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

68,46,42,475/-. Further the assessee has incurred finance cost of ₹.31,92,41,003/- during the year. The assessee also had total asset for ₹.814,27,46,778/-. Thus, the correct amount of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was worked out to be ₹.3,02,65,008/-. The amount

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

68,46,42,475/-. Further the assessee has incurred finance cost of ₹.31,92,41,003/- during the year. The assessee also had total asset for ₹.814,27,46,778/-. Thus, the correct amount of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was worked out to be ₹.3,02,65,008/-. The amount

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,31,19,282 73,55,67,138 MACHINERY Total 5,81,30,811 2,19,49,05,960 2,25,30,36,771 M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 8 :: The assessee also filed invoices of assets from Page Nos.186-442. 9. The AO second time issued notice u/s.142(1) dated 11.11.2022 for AY 2021-22 asking for the following

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 144B. 5. Subsequently, the PCIT on examination of the assessment records for the relevant assessment year 2018-19, issued show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 20.04.2023 proposed to set aside the assessment by revising the assessment as under:- ‘’a) ‘On perusing the records for the AY 2018-19, it is noticed that the total funds available

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

68,560 10,75,385 (Gift from father: Rs.50,00,000/- duly disclosed in my return) 2014-15 44,33,240 12,51,161 11. I am giving below the source for acquiring the property and for loan repayment made by me during the AY 2014-15 & 2015-16; Sl.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. Investment/Application of funds 8 I.T.A. No.922/Chny/20

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

revise the income tax assessment order passed\non 12.04.2021 and withdrawing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the\nfollowing grounds:\n(a) that the assessee Trust is engaged in the activity of running a petrol bunk\nfrom where it earned more than 80% of its income;\n(b) that the activity is not undertaken in the course

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,54,396/-. 4. Subsequently, the ld.PCIT on perusal of the assessment records found that the AO has failed to make necessary enquiries or verifications in respect of the following deductions claimed by the assessee: i) Non rural write off claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) of Rs. 155,55,98,616/- ii) Deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) of Rs.147

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

u/s 263, 36(1)(vii) and section 37 which are seminal to the controversy. “……..Section - 263, Income-tax Act, 1961 - FA, 2025 E.-Revision by the 28[Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner* Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 29 263. (1) The 28[ 30[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or] Commissioner may call for and examine

M/S. BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,08,267/- after making addition of Rs.6,12,60,652/-. Pertinently, the\ncase was selected in the complete scrutiny category. Among various\nissues enquired by the Ld.AO included an assessee's claim of write off of\ntrade advance amounting to Rs.8,78,95,397/-. Before the Ld.AO the\nassessee had claimed that it had given trade advances of\nRs.8

PRABHU KANIMOZHI,,ERODE vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

68 on account of chit money received. Finally, the income was assessed at Rs.336.77 Lacs which was subjected to assessee’s further appeal before first appellate authority. 3.2 Subsequently upon perusal of cash records, Ld. Pr. CIT invoked revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 and put the assessee to show-cause notice on 07-03-2022. It was alleged that unaccounted stock

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLRE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 340/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi Acit बनाम/ No. 274C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -1, Perambalur, Trichy. Vs. Tamil Nadu – 621 212. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Asmpa-6568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 341/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Kathiravan Srinivasan Acit बनाम/ No. 274C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -1, Perambalur, Trichy. Vs. Tamil Nadu – 621 212. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspk-6687-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022

section 263 of the Act and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4.1 The PCIT has grossly erred in directing the AO to add the agricultural income of the appellant u/s. 68 of the Act in the impugned order when there was no such proposal in his show-cause notice.” 4. Brief facts are that

KATHIRAVAN ANANTHALAKSHMI,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 340/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19) Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi Acit बनाम/ No. 274C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -1, Perambalur, Trichy. Vs. Tamil Nadu – 621 212. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Asmpa-6568-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 341/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Kathiravan Srinivasan Acit बनाम/ No. 274C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -1, Perambalur, Trichy. Vs. Tamil Nadu – 621 212. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspk-6687-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022

section 263 of the Act and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4.1 The PCIT has grossly erred in directing the AO to add the agricultural income of the appellant u/s. 68 of the Act in the impugned order when there was no such proposal in his show-cause notice.” 4. Brief facts are that

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained