SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section 115BBE of IT Act as it is inserted vide finance Act, 2012 and applicable in case income added u/s 68. Consequently, Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. 7.5 Vide Grounds of appeal No.5, the appellant has challenged correctness of interest levied u/s 234A

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section 115BBE of IT Act as it is inserted vide finance Act, 2012 and applicable in case income added u/s 68. Consequently, Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. 7.5 Vide Grounds of appeal No.5, the appellant has challenged correctness of interest levied u/s 234A

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

68 SOT 178\n(Mumbai) [13-02-2015] discussed herein supra. Under section 90(2),\nwhere the government has entered into a tax treaty with any tax\njurisdiction, the provisions of Income Tax Act shall apply to the extent they\nare more beneficial to such assesses to whom such treaty applies. In my\nconsidered view, where there

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\nLevy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act\namounting

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

234A and 234B of the Act.\n\nLevy of interest under Section 220(2) of the Act (Rs.71,99,747) << to\nbe taken wherever applicable>>\n\n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble\nCIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under Section

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,,TUTUCORIN vs. DCIT, CC-1,, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

68,84,120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes

PANDIAN HARI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 11(40, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2598/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pandian Hari, The Income Tax Officer, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Thambuchetty Street, Chennai Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. The prayer raised read as follows:- 1. Delete the addition of ₹40,44,000/- sustained u/s 68, 2. Delete the consequential tax u/s 115BBE and interest levied u/ss 234A

KARUNAMOORTHI KAVITHA,DHARMAPURI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1732/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karunamoorthi Kavitha, Assistant Commissioner Of No.10A, Vijaya Hospital, V. Income Tax, Pennagaram Main Road, Opp Central Circle, Madheswara Theatre, Salem – 636 007. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan: Amfpk-6223-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

Section 68 of the Act 5. For that the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the Investment in property was made by the appellant is one of the sources from the gift received from her mother and brother. 6. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate Sec.68 are not invocable