Tenzing Match Works v. DCIT

419 ITR 338Reported decision#24919 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 244ASection 263

Judgments citing Tenzing Match Works v. DCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Pandyan Grama Bank, Salem

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2870/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024 & Co No.06/Chny/2025 (In Ita No.: 2870/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Pandyan Grama Bank, Income Tax, Vs. Now Known As Tamil Nadu Grama Circle 1, Bank, Salem. No.6, Yercaud Road, Hasthampatty, Salem – 636 007. [Pan: Aahat-7854-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri. P. Gurusamy, I.T.P. Department By : Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, C.I.T
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 80P

…and tangible material does not survive. :-7-: I.T.A. No.:2870/Chny/2024 & C.O. No.06/Chny/2025 15. The ld.AR submitted that the above stand of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Madras High Court in the case of M/s.Tenzing Match Works reported in 419 ITR 338 and wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held as follows: “The legal principle laid down in the above decision is that the language employed in section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under section 143(3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and therefore it is not permissible to adopt different standards whil…

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2430/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n under the head “other liabilities” and therefore, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the details. The ld. Counsel has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tenzing Match Works v DCIT 419 ITR 338 and also in the case of CIT v Elgi Tread (India) Ltd. 96 taxmann.com 254 (Mad). 6 I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/17 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that the assessee has simply shown in the return of income under Notes on account by giving the details. Therefore, the assessee has not fully disclosed all the details before the Assessin…

Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2429/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. Electronics Corporation Of Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Tamilnadu Ltd., No. 692, Mhu Income Tax, Complex, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan:Aaace1670K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2001-02 & 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds For The Assessment Year 2001-02: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 23.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.19/Cit(A)-9/2009-10) For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…n under the head “other liabilities” and therefore, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the details. The ld. Counsel has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tenzing Match Works v DCIT 419 ITR 338 and also in the case of CIT v Elgi Tread (India) Ltd. 96 taxmann.com 254 (Mad). 6 I.T.A. Nos.2429 & 2430/Chny/17 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR has pointed that the assessee has simply shown in the return of income under Notes on account by giving the details. Therefore, the assessee has not fully disclosed all the details before the Assessin…

Tenzing Match Works v. DCIT (419 ITR 338) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax