TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,02,700/-. The AO in completing the assessment made the following additions / disallowances: a) Addition of Rs.3,86,75,110/- u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Act being difference between the value of land declared by the assessee and the market value adopted by the stamp duty authorities in respect of purchase of 4 properties. b) Addition of Rs.40

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

68,29,788/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act (Tax effect – Rs.43,01,56,277/-) 5.1 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable to tax those receipts which are received without consideration / for inadequate consideration whereas the present

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

68,29,788/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act (Tax effect – Rs.43,01,56,277/-) 5.1 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable to tax those receipts which are received without consideration / for inadequate consideration whereas the present

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

2,43,68,627/-, the assessee has admitted a long term capital loss of Rs. 83,06,380/-. Hence the difference between the two, i.e.,, Rs. 3,26,75,007/- shall be assessed as the income of the assessee for AY 2014-15 chargeable u/s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961 under the head long term capital gains.” 5. Being

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SGP EXIM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2005/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. S.G.P. Exim Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, V. No. 68, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Goapalapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aabcs-0551-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022

68, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Goapalapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [PAN: AABCS-0551-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 आदेश

A VIJAYAKUMARI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, NCW-1, , THANJAVUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

2 I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/18 Department that the assessee sold an immovable property (land & building) for a sale consideration of ₹.42,68,880/- as against the guideline value of ₹.44,69,000/- during the financial year 2013-14. As the said transaction attracts the provision of section 50C

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI vs. A V A CHOLAYIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ava Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6Th Avenue, 15Th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [Pan: Aaica2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 28.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Giving Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.44,22,711/- For Ay 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- For Ay 2014-15 Claimed Under Section 36( 1 )(Iii) When The Assessee Company Has Not Produced Any Evidence Regarding The Transaction For Validating The Claim That It Arose

50C were satisfied or not by the assessee. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO restored.” 2. The first effective ground raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of disallowance

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 2,43,68,627/-. The A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 4,04,156/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(3), CHENNAI vs. M.SURESH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1990/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Sureshkumar, Non Corporate Ward 14(3), 121, Vs. S/O Shri Mohan, Door No. 68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Dshps8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [PAN:DSHPS8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU

VEDHAPURI RENUKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-22(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

68,040/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO and now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee before me, only requested that the State Government has reduced the guideline value of the property subsequently and for this, he filed

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

50C of the Act, this value of ₹.6,51,76,500/- has to be taken as sale consideration for the computation of capital gain. Since, the assessee has not filed any return of income admitting any capital gain on the sale of the above property, the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was re- opened by way of issuing

SHRI K.S. KATHIRVEL (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2467/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri K.S. Kathirvel (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, New No. 16/17, Teachers Colony, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Podanur, Coimbatore 641 023. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaihk6826J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Srihar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 27.05.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 27.05.2016 In I.T.A.No.118/15-16 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Partly Confirming The Addition Made In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains On The Application Of Section 50C Of 2

50C of 2 I.T.A. No.2467/M/16 the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the entire re-computation of Long Term Capital Gains was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the re-working of the indexed cost of acquisition being the fair market value

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

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 of the assessment

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

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 of the assessment

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

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 of the assessment

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

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 of the assessment

SMT. ROOPREKHA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.149/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rooprekha Vs The Income Tax Officer, 4/25, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandaveli, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Adopr 8893F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2 15.12.2017 and accepted income declared in the return of income filed for the year. 3. The case has been subsequently taken up for revision u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, insofar as issue of computation of long term

RAJENDRAA SAKUNTHALA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,770/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.03.2022 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore, being the JAO. In response thereto, the assessee filed her return of income on 15.04.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.4,03,29,350/-. 5. Thereafter, the case was assigned

XL COLOUR COATING ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Xl Colour Coating, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , Plot No. 76, Industrial Developed Plots, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafx0897J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

2 I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/25 Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri Y. Sridhar, CA submits that there was no compliance by the assessee before the Assessing Officer