Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT

409 ITR 369High Court2018#7926 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147(1)Section 148(2)

Issues it is cited on

reopening of assessmentreason to believenotice under section 148section 148section 147nfacsection 14

Judgments citing Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT

ANNAKODIRAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUNELVELI

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

ITA 4121/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4121/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Annakodiraj, The Income Tax Officer, 93, Kankanankinaru, Vs. Ward 1, Balapathiraramapuram Po, Tirunelveli Vk Pudur Tk, Tirunelveli – 627 953. Pan: Bydpa 7546K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 09.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…sion, the Ld.AR relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court i. PVP Ventures Ltd., vs. ACIT, 65 taxmann.com 221 ii. Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 733 (Mad) :- 3 -: iii. Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd., vs. ACIT, 409 ITR 369 (Mad) iv. Anand Cine Services (P) Ltd., vs. ACIT, 169 taxmann.com 236 3. The Ld.DR was duly heard. 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee in Ground No.4.1 (supra) has raised a pure legal issue which does not require examination of fresh facts. In light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the c…

QILIN SUPPORTERS,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), TIRUPUR

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

ITA 1275/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1275/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Qilin Supporters Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11, Kasturibai Street, Udumalpet, Ward 2(4), Tiruppur 642 126. Tirupur. [Pan: Aaafq2944D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Raised Vide Letter Dated 22.09.2025 & Submits That The Issue Of Questioning The Reopening As Legal Ground Can Be Raised At Any 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 43CSection 50C

…Assessing Officer made addition on the issues for which assessment was reopened. Further, the ld. AR submits that the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v. ACIT reported in 409 ITR 369 (Mad) in arriving the above said conclusion. He submits since no addition made under section 50C of the Act as per the reasons recorded for reopening and the reassessment made is invalid and prayed to allow the additional ground. 3. The ld. DR Ms. M. Subhashri, Addl. CIT submits that there is no difference between provisions under section 50C an…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1245/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C. Yamuna, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

…ries Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi) and the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision in the case of Martech Peripherals (P) Ltd. reported in [2017] 394 ITR 733 (Mad.) and in the case of Tractors & Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT reported in [2018] 409 ITR 369 (Mad.) The Ld.CIT(A) while adjudicating the legal issue noted that the AO has reopened the assessment on account of sale of immovable property of ₹7,55,55,190/- and some other transactions pertaining to TDS deduction, but without making any additions/disallowances pertaining to the issues for which he has reopened the assessment, has passed the…

MOORTHY,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, SALEM

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f appeal filed in ground no. 5, the assessee has relied upon two judicial pronouncements to support the ground. c) Further reliance is placed upon the order of the decision of The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm equipment reported in 409 ITR 369. d) The First Appellate Authority in not accepting the decision of Bombay High court in the case of Jet Airways Private Limited reported in 331 ITR 236 has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High court and Punjab and Haryana High court. e) Further reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products…

KANNAN PREMKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3167/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…on some other new issues which was not the basis for reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. In this context, Ld.AR has relied on judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited Vs. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 369 (Mad). It was further contended by the Ld.AR that when the addition itself is not legally tenable based on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, imposition of penalty on the same u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 7. The Ld.DR supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and…

CHELLAPPAN ( DECEASED ) ( REP BY L/H SARASWATHI ),ERODE vs. ITO , WARD - 1 (1) , ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1090/CHNY/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Chellappan (Deceased), The Income Tax Officer, (Represented By Wife & Legal Ward-1(1), Heir Saraswathi) Vs. Erode. 71/72, Nethaji Road, Erode – 638 002. [Pan: Apspc-4593-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 13Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 47

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहन दास, "ाियक सद" के सम' BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1090/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Chellappan (Deceased), The Income Tax Officer, (Represented by wife and Legal Ward-1(1), Heir Saraswathi) Vs. Erode. 71/72, Nethaji Road, Erode – 638 002. [PAN: APSPC-4593-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by :…

D. RAJARAM, REP BY S. DHANDAPANI(POWER HOLDER),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.233/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri D. Rajaram, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By S. Dhandapani Vs. International Taxation Ward, (Power Holder), Coimbatore. Old No.21G, New No.35, Rangasamy Colony, 2Nd Street, Selvapuram, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akmpr-4391-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy,CIT
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…on of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). The Ld. counsel for the assessee has also relied the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT [2018] 409 ITR 369 (Mad.), wherein it is held as under: “16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT (2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer…

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 107/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…e issued under section 148 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not raised any objection against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 3.6 Similarly, the decision in the case of M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited v. ACIT 409 ITR 369 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in that case, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed and thereafter, assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was done. 3.7 Under the above facts and circ…

SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2417/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundaram, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 22

…e issued under section 148 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not raised any objection against the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 3.6 Similarly, the decision in the case of M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited v. ACIT 409 ITR 369 (Mad) has no application to the facts of the present case, wherein, in that case, scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed and thereafter, assessment was reopened under section 147 of the Act, whereas, in the present case, no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was done. 3.7 Under the above facts and circ…

SHRI.ANTHONY MUTHU CYRIL JOSEPH,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 961/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.961/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Anthony Muthu Cyril Joseph, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.709, Sboa School, Corporate Ward-2(3), East Gate Road, Chennai. Annanagar West Extn., Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaapc 4525 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.D.Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.961/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr.Anthony Muthu Cyril Joseph, v. The Income Tax Officer, No.709, SBOA School, Corporate Ward-2(3), East Gate Road, Chennai. Annanagar West Extn., Chennai-600 101. [PAN: AAAPC 4525 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.D.Anand, A…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…an ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 24 -: alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the instant writ petition should not be entertained’’. And again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd vs. ACIT, (2018) 409 ITR 369, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer tha…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…an ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 24 -: alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the instant writ petition should not be entertained’’. And again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd vs. ACIT, (2018) 409 ITR 369, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer tha…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…an ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 24 -: alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the instant writ petition should not be entertained’’. And again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd vs. ACIT, (2018) 409 ITR 369, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer tha…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

…an ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 24 -: alternative remedy available to the petitioner and, therefore, the instant writ petition should not be entertained’’. And again the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd vs. ACIT, (2018) 409 ITR 369, wherein it was held as follows:- ‘’16. The decision in the case of Jet Airways (cited supra) was referred to by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited v. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Delhi), wherein it was held that the Legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give blanket powers to the Assessing Officer tha…

Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. v. ACIT (409 ITR 369) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax