CIT v. Ashley Services Ltd.

369 ITR 209High Court2014#17766 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,252 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashley Services Ltd.

Wallace Sports and Research Foundation, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.2057/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) M/s.Wallace Sports and Research The ACIT, Vs. Foundation, Non Corporate Circle-3, Chandhok Centre Level 1, Chennai-34. 244 Mount Road, Chennai-6. PAN AAAFW 0805 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Sri R.Lakshmi Ratan,Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R : 29.11.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearing : 08.1…

P Praveen Kumar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2212/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 21.11.2017

Section 143(3)Section 148

…merely because there is a change of opinion cannot be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, in the present case also, it was not permissible for Assessing Officer to issue notice under s. 148. 7.7 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Ashley Services Ltd. in [2014] 369 ITR 209 (Mad) wherein held that reading of the reasons given for reopening of assessment shows that it was nothing but a review of the orders passed u/s.143(3) of the Act relating to the assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98. Consequently, even though the assessment was re-opened, then a limitation period of 4 years there being no fresh material to distur…

K.R.Jayaram, Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1698/CHNY/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…. reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del.) and Usha International Ltd., in 210 Taxman 188. Further, ld.A.R relied on the following judgments. i) Dishman Pharmaceuticals And Chemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT in [2012] 346 ITR 245 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. Ashley Services Ltd. in [2014] 369 ITR 209 (Mad) iii) Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Vs. ACIT in [2006] 287 ITR 25 (Mad) iv) Debashis Moulik Vs. ACIT in [2015] 370 ITR 660 (Cal) v) Bapalal And Co. EXPORTS Vs. JCIT(OSD) in [2007] 289 ITR 37 (Mad) ITA No.1698/Mds./16 :- 8 -: vi) INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF in ITA No.282/Agra/2013 vide order dated 20.12.2…

Fl Smidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 393/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 393/Ch/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Formerly Fls Automation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

For Appellant: ShriG. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, JCIT

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

…the assessment. The initiation of re-assessment without any fresh evidence amounts to change of opinion and hence the re-assessment is bad in law. In this regard, the AR invited our attention to the ratios reported in 320 ITR 361, 340 ITR 299, 378 ITR 547& 369 ITR 209. He further submitted that the reassessment made on the ground different from reasons recorded in notice is not valid. In this regard, he invited our attention to para 11 of the reassessment order and relied on the ratios reported in 331 ITR 236, 349 ITR 482 and 372 ITR 762. He has also relied on the Board Circular No 3/2015 dated 12.02.2015 re…

P.Sundararajan, Avanashi vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1666/CHNY/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1666/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Madhavan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…see’s letter, the Assessing Officer opted not to disallow any I.T.A.No.1666/Mds/2013. :- 6 -: payment of interest at the time of original assessment. He further relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashley Services Ltd 369 ITR 209 (Mad) wherein it was held that a reading of the reasons given for reopening of the assessment showed that it was nothing but a review of the orders passed under section 143(3) relating to the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Consequently, even though the assessment was reopened within the limitation period of four years, there being no fres…