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

198 ITR 297 (SC) clearly held that proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit for the Revenue, which are aimed at gathering the ‘escaped income’. At the same time, We are aware that powers u/s 147 and 148 of the Act are not unbridled one as it is hedged with several safeguards conceived in the interest of eliminating room

K.THANIKACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

198 & 199, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai totally measuring 2 grounds and 1410 sq.ft (6210sq.ft) by way of three registered documents as follows: Doc. No.1109 of 2009 dt 28.5.09 – 650 sq.ft for Rs.42,90,000 Doc.No.1473 of 2009 dt 10.7.09–1192 sq.ft. for Rs.71,52,000 Doc.No.1817 of 2009 dt 28.8.09-4368 sq.ft. for Rs.2

K.THANIKACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

198 & 199, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street, Mylapore, Chennai totally measuring 2 grounds and 1410 sq.ft (6210sq.ft) by way of three registered documents as follows: Doc. No.1109 of 2009 dt 28.5.09 – 650 sq.ft for Rs.42,90,000 Doc.No.1473 of 2009 dt 10.7.09–1192 sq.ft. for Rs.71,52,000 Doc.No.1817 of 2009 dt 28.8.09-4368 sq.ft. for Rs.2

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-12(1), CHENNAI vs. M.SUMATHY, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where any sum is found credited in the assessee’s books and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation furnished is found to be unsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to Income-Tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. A proviso

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 of the Act as well as disallowance of expenses at ₹.26,16,198/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 of the Act as well as disallowance of expenses at ₹.26,16,198/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

68,89,922 | 1,15,25,809\nPAGE-23\n:-23-:\nITA Nos: 991, 992, 993,\n1639 & 1644/Chny/2025\nGreat Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial precedents, we\nare of the considered view that the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in treating the advance\nrental receipts as income of the year under consideration is contrary to the settled\nprinciples governing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

68,89,922 1,15,25,809\nThe settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice\nis no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nBerger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Skyline\nGreat Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial

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

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

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

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

ZAHIR HUSSAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP CIR-9(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Chny/2019 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had proved the identity of the parties, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. R. GEETHA, PUDUKOTTAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 68 - 69C without appreciating the scheme of the Act, It is only where assessee found to be owner of investments, money and bullion or expenditure "Not Recorded" in the books could be added u/s 69, 69A & 69C respectively. In case of disclosed Balance Sheet, no such addition could be made on asset side. The Ld. AO has accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances, wherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by holding as under: - "4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have passed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note was prepared

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances,\nwherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by\nholding as under: -\n\"4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties.\nLearned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have\npassed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note\nwas prepared

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. JOHNSON LIFTS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Chny/2024 & Ita No.48/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 & 2017-18

68,100/-. 13.The CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow depreciation claimed on software @ 60% although according to section 32 of the Income Tax Act, depreciation on intangible assets is limited to 25%, contrary to decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dinamalar Vs. ITO, Income Tax Department, Ward 11(1), Tirunelveli

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)

198 ITR 297 and V. Jaganmohan Rao vs. Commission of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, (1970) 75 ITR 373 had examined the effect of Explanation 3 to Section 147 and held as follows: "The effect of the amended provisions came to be considered, in two distinct lines of precedent on the subject. The first line of authority

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)

198 ITR 297 and V. Jaganmohan Rao vs. Commission of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, (1970) 75 ITR 373 had examined the effect of Explanation 3 to Section 147 and held as follows: "The effect of the amended provisions came to be considered, in two distinct lines of precedent on the subject. The first line of authority

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)

198 ITR 297 and V. Jaganmohan Rao vs. Commission of Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax, (1970) 75 ITR 373 had examined the effect of Explanation 3 to Section 147 and held as follows: "The effect of the amended provisions came to be considered, in two distinct lines of precedent on the subject. The first line of authority