Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for
ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11
Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)
For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024
Section 147Section 148Section 234
…s mandatory only on tax on income returned and not on tax on unanticipated additions made on assessment is not correct as held in 278 ITR 47 or 198 CTR 670 Uttaranchal High Court - (CIT & Anr. Vs. Reading & Bates Exploration Co.), 299 ITR 286 or 110 ITD 24 or 111 TTJ 55 Mum AT- (Datamatics Ltd. vs. ACIT) and 187 DTR 49 or 77 ITR 91 or 203 TTJ 925 Ranchi AT - (Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO). Probable view that such charging is mandatory is not proper, as if so, these decisions would not have been rendered. If Assessing Officer does not follow these precedent decisions of higher appellate authorities, they should be,…
