BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

32 results for “section 68”+ Section 801clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai470Delhi460Karnataka285Kolkata217Ahmedabad121Jaipur117Hyderabad98Bangalore68Pune44Calcutta38Chandigarh36Chennai32Visakhapatnam29Lucknow28Indore26Guwahati24Allahabad23Nagpur23Surat21Cuttack15Rajkot13Ranchi12Telangana8Agra7Cochin7Dehradun6Amritsar5Jodhpur5SC4Jabalpur4Orissa2Patna2Raipur2Uttarakhand1Panaji1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 153C42Section 143(3)25Addition to Income24Section 153A20Section 13218Section 2(15)16Section 6814Section 143(2)13Disallowance12Reopening of Assessment

A.N.MUTHIAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-21(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2188/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 have been laid down and in as much as none of the conditions exist, he ought to have set aside the original order. 10. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing.” :- 3 -: 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an bank employee, drawing income from salary. The case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CUDDALORE vs. CHOLAJI KANNIYALAL, KAMARAJ STREET, VILLUPURAM

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 143(1)8
Survey u/s 133A7
ITA 1674/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1674/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 51/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Cholaji Kanniyalal, Income Tax, V. No. 191, Kamaraj Street, Circle -1, Villupuram, Cuddalore – 607 002. Tamil Nadu – 605 602. [Pan: Aaepk-4555-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit Department By : Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi D. Jain, CA
Section 139(1)Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Income-tax Act 1961. 2.1. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that even the sales were made out of the available stock on hand, the closing cash balance as on 08.11.2016 was Rs.2,24,39,163/- and the assessee has nor deposited the entire amount immediately after the ban on specified notes was imposed

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S MIDAS GOLDEN DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

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

ITA 2562/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2562/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

801(SC) and held that even if identity of the creditor is established, addition can be made if the transactions are not found to be genuine.. 2.5 Having relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports luvt Ltd, 319 ITR 005(SC) ought to have taken cognizance of the fact that

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1591/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

68,770 Additions 2. Deposits in foreign 1,97,56,255 1,41,73,476 2,12,20,633 3,28,34,929 bank accounts 3. Credit card expenses 1,38,80,988 1,28,67,990 44,02,093 37,24,433 4. Personal Gifts 3,13,507 90,012 5. Assessed income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1562/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

68,770 Additions 2. Deposits in foreign 1,97,56,255 1,41,73,476 2,12,20,633 3,28,34,929 bank accounts 3. Credit card expenses 1,38,80,988 1,28,67,990 44,02,093 37,24,433 4. Personal Gifts 3,13,507 90,012 5. Assessed income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1592/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

68,770 Additions 2. Deposits in foreign 1,97,56,255 1,41,73,476 2,12,20,633 3,28,34,929 bank accounts 3. Credit card expenses 1,38,80,988 1,28,67,990 44,02,093 37,24,433 4. Personal Gifts 3,13,507 90,012 5. Assessed income

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)(I/C), CHENNAI vs. PAUL DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1563/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025 िनधा=रण वष= /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & C.O Nos.52, 53, 54 & 55/Chny/2025 (Arises In Ita Nos.1562, 1563, 1591 & 1592/Chny/2025) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Paul Dhinakaran, Tax, Vs. No.7, Jeevarathinam Nagar, Central Circle-3(1)(I/C), Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aabpd 8489M

For Appellant: Shri Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 6Section 6(1)(c)

68,770 Additions 2. Deposits in foreign 1,97,56,255 1,41,73,476 2,12,20,633 3,28,34,929 bank accounts 3. Credit card expenses 1,38,80,988 1,28,67,990 44,02,093 37,24,433 4. Personal Gifts 3,13,507 90,012 5. Assessed income

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2342/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman
Section 143(3)

801 is squarely applicable to case. Though assessee has received amounts by way of account payee cheques, transactions cannot be treated as genume in presence of overwhelming evidences put forward by Revenue. fact that in spite :- 27 -: of earning such steep profits, assessee never ventured to involve himself in any other transaction with broker cannot be mere coincidence of lack

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1787/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Dass, CITFor Respondent: 21.12.2017
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

68,10,572/- has to be treated as income under the head “profits and gains of business” and not under the head “capital gains”. i) For the above stated reasons the assessee is not eligible to claim the exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act with respect to the gain of Rs.32,90,96,125/- arising out of sale of shares

MITSUBA SICAL INDIA PVT. LIMITED,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 400/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.400/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. Mitsuba Sical India Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, (Previously Mitsuba Sical (India Corporate Circle 4(1) Ltd) Chennai. No.8,Sipcot Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi 601 201. [Pan Aaccm 4446M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan and ShriFor Respondent: Shri. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 144C

801 under section 234B of the Act despite the fact that additions to income were unanticipated and there would be consequential reduction in the interest if the issues under appeal are allowed’. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that ground Nos. 1 to 5 could be considered as general in nature. Accordingly these grounds

M/S CROWN REAL ESTATE PVT LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(3), NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

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

ITA 353/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14, in so far as it goes against the appellant, is contrary to law and facts, against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.” Now, the ld.counsel for the assessee before us pointed out that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated this jurisdictional

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022
Section 2Section 263Section 32(1)

68,890/-. The assessee company was holding 100% equity shares in M/s. Kiran Medical Systems Pvt.Ltd. M/s. Kiran Medical Systems Pvt.Ltd is a 100% subsidiary of assessee company had amalgamated with the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.2013 in a scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 28.04.2015. The assessee had invested Rs.114

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 800/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 801/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 802/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 799/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 803/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 804/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 805/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

section 153-C of the Act, the High Court has rightly set aside the Assessment Order(s). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court do not require any interference by this Court. Hence, all these appeals deserve to the dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.” In light of the above judicial precedents, we hold that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. S R BUILDERS CHENNAI LLP, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2891/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2891/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 145: …. In terms of the newly introduced provision, the appellant has been following POCM with respect to all the construction contracts undertaken for recognition of revenue as mandated by ICDS-III. The percentage of completion method basically indicates that revenue from performance obligations recognized over a period of time should be based on the percentage of completion