NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,48,719 40,31,39,884 2009-10 4,97,61,208 176,36,06,437 2010-11 4,96,21,125 103,71,82,314 2011-12 47,49,76,293

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,48,719 40,31,39,884 2009-10 4,97,61,208 176,36,06,437 2010-11 4,96,21,125 103,71,82,314 2011-12 47,49,76,293

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,48,719 40,31,39,884 2009-10 4,97,61,208 176,36,06,437 2010-11 4,96,21,125 103,71,82,314 2011-12 47,49,76,293

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,48,719 40,31,39,884 2009-10 4,97,61,208 176,36,06,437 2010-11 4,96,21,125 103,71,82,314 2011-12 47,49,76,293

SANKARA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2027/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Sankara Rao, The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Non Corporate Circle – 6, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aacpr 1610 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act. 5. The CIT(Appeals), by placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in C. Pakirisamy v. ACIT 92009) 315 ITR 293

M/S. RAKTIKANTA PANDA NIRANJAN PANDA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raktikanta Panda Niranjan Panda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. B, 301, Block B, Tvs Emerald Non Corporate Ward 22(4), Green Hills, No. 345/2B, Tambaram. Nedungundram, Ngo Nagar, Alapakkam, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. [Pan:Adjpn9359H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. M. Mohan Babu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons.

293 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. 2 I.T.A. No.1781/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. SEYAD TRADING COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, cross objection of assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Section 153C. Without a proper satisfaction note on the issue of cash deposits, the additions cannot be sustained. 6. Therefore, in light of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may consider annulling the assessment proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. In light of the above submissions, we respectfully request that the delay

P E RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 17(4), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.588/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Pe Rajkumar, No.F-3/12, 6Th Main Road, Non-Corporate Ward 17(4), Mogappair Eri Scheme, Chennai – 34. Mogappair East, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Ahbpr1143B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Ld.AO with respect to reopening U/s.147 and also on merits. 4. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that the case of the assessee was reopened U/s.147 r.w.s.148 of the Act earlier based on the information collected through AIR that the assessee had deposited Rs.27

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

68. Further, section 292C of the Act creates a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership and truthfulness of books, documents, or valuables found in the possession or control of a person during a search or survey. The extract of the provision is given below: "…where any books of account, other documents… are found in the possession or control

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

68. Further, section 292C of the Act creates a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership and truthfulness of books, documents, or valuables found in the possession or control of a person during a search or survey. The extract of the provision is given below: "…where any books of account, other documents… are found in the possession or control

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

68. Further, section 292C of the Act creates a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership and truthfulness of books, documents, or valuables found in the possession or control of a person during a search or survey. The extract of the provision is given below: "…where any books of account, other documents… are found in the possession or control

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

68. Further, section 292C of the Act creates a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership and truthfulness of books, documents, or valuables found in the possession or control of a person during a search or survey. The extract of the provision is given below: "…where any books of account, other documents… are found in the possession or control

RANGAMANI KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

68. Further, section 292C of the Act creates a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership and truthfulness of books, documents, or valuables found in the possession or control of a person during a search or survey. The extract of the provision is given below: "…where any books of account, other documents… are found in the possession or control

INDIA PISTONS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2207 & 2208/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2004-05. M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Arjay Apex Centre, Of Income Tax, No.24, College Road, Corporate Circle 2(3) Chennai 600 026. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaaci 1439E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,754/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Since assessee had international transactions with its Associated Enterprise abroad, ld. Assessing Officer made a reference to the ld. Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Ld. TPO on taking up the transfer pricing analysis noted that assessee had not maintained documents required under Rule 10D of the Income

ITO, WARD-2,, PERAMBALUR vs. SHRI S.B. RAJA,, ARIYALUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri. S.B. Raja, Ward -2, V. No. 14, North Street, Perambalur. Soorkuzhi, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Tulak, Ariyalur 621 801. [Pan: Anzpr 3754L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. I.P. Roopa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022

section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 3.3. What these 5 cases cited above show that as long as assessee has given truthful disclosure of the primary facts, he cannot be hit with reopening u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. It is for Income Tax Department to assess or reassess the case in the light of primary facts

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

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

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

68,060/- 6,50,533/- Reliance Capital 73,50,033/- 8,56,347/- Sundaram Finance Ltd. 65,41,526/- 5,00,372/- Tata Finance Ltd. 64,23,139/- 6,62,037/- Total 4,37,72,533/- 53,18,606/- The AO observed that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source on the aforesaid interest payments u/s.194A

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

68,060/- 6,50,533/- Reliance Capital 73,50,033/- 8,56,347/- Sundaram Finance Ltd. 65,41,526/- 5,00,372/- Tata Finance Ltd. 64,23,139/- 6,62,037/- Total 4,37,72,533/- 53,18,606/- The AO observed that the assessee has not deducted income-tax at source on the aforesaid interest payments u/s.194A