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.

170 results for “TDS”+ Section 148clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai616Delhi534Hyderabad198Bangalore178Chennai170Ahmedabad153Jaipur120Kolkata105Pune101Chandigarh96Cochin74Indore58Raipur54Rajkot46Visakhapatnam43Surat41Nagpur35Lucknow35Patna27Guwahati25Amritsar17Agra14Jodhpur9Cuttack8Jabalpur8Allahabad6Panaji6Dehradun5Ranchi5

Key Topics

Section 148113Section 147106Section 143(3)71Addition to Income60Section 14A41Reopening of Assessment39Disallowance35TDS35Section 4031Reassessment

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1166/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the ITA Nos.1165 & 1166/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mr. Manickam Chettiar Velmurugan :: 9 :: extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued

Showing 1–20 of 170 · Page 1 of 9

...
27
Deduction26
Section 115J23

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1165/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the ITA Nos.1165 & 1166/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mr. Manickam Chettiar Velmurugan :: 9 :: extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued

SAPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2416/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 271A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust

SUPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2417/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 271A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/Chny/2024 (AY 2018-19) Sappahire Educational & Charitable Trust

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2031/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which

LOGANATHAN DHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which

CHAHIDA BEGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which

FURSHANA GARMENTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3

148 of the Act for issuance of notice and in a faceless manner, to the extent provided in Section 144B of the Act with reference to making assessment or reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. The impugned notice dated 27th August, 2022 has been issued by respondent no.1 (JAO) and not by the NFAC, which

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, JAN DE NUL DREDGING (I)(P)LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 870/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. &
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

TDS compliance, it means, the details are already filed before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer, by considering the same, the assessment order was 7 I.T.A. No. 870/Chny/20 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act. Now, the Assessing Officer, who issued the notice under section 148

RAGHAVAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NCC-22(1), TAMBARAM

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

ITA 1776/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1776/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Raghavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3503, Bay View House, Hiraranan, Non Corporate Circle 22(1). 5/63, Omr, Egattur, Thazambur, Tambaram, Chennai. Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu. 600 130 [Pan:Ajjpv9178L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 12 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(2)(b)Section 274

section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the return of income and the returned income declared by the assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, that is to say no variation was made to declared taxable income. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessee was under bonafide belief that since TDS

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI vs. SANTHA BUILD TECH INIDA PRIVATE LIMITED, EKKATUTHANGAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 573/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194A

148 is not valid without appreciating that there is escapement of income from assessment, within the meaning of the provisions of Explanation 2(c)(i) to section 147 of the IT Act, since in the assessment order framed, income chargeable to tax has been under assessed, and the same shall amount to escapement of income. 2.1 The learned

MANIPAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD XV(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 947/CHNY/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:947/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 Manipal Financial Services, The Income Tax Officer, 328, Plaza Centre, Business Ward Xv(4), Vs. 129 Gn Chetty Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aakfm 7449R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R.Anita, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1061661390(1) Dated 28.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Business Ward Xv(4), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06 U/S.147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.03.2013. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.147 Of The Act & Consequently Confirmed The Reassessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 47

TDS certificates and receipts mentioned therein and the AO framed assessment having these information. Now, this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Foramer France, reported in (2003) 264 ITR 566, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. MS.AARTHI SCANS, KOVILPATTI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

TDS for the above payment and it requires to be disallowed. (d) The assessee had debited consulting chares, interpretation charges, lab testing charges and reporting charges to the Profit and Loss account. In addition to the above expenditure the assesssee had debited Rs.48,44,023/- as referral charges to the P & L account. The referral charges are nothing

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM FASTENERS LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 317/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

TDS has been made on this amount, the same needs to be disallowed u/s 40(a) (ia). iv) The assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs.2,53,63,037/- separately claimed as brought forward in respect of Plant & Machinery installed and put to use during the year ended 31.03.2006. The additional depreciation on plant and machinery is only

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 74/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

TDS has been made on this amount, the same needs to be disallowed u/s 40(a) (ia). iv) The assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs.2,53,63,037/- separately claimed as brought forward in respect of Plant & Machinery installed and put to use during the year ended 31.03.2006. The additional depreciation on plant and machinery is only

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

section 148 of the Act, which is beyond four years, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the details and therefore, the Assessing Officer, based on the information available on record, which were already filed by the assessee i.e., return of income, came to a conclusion that there is an escapement

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

section 148 of the Act, which is beyond four years, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the details and therefore, the Assessing Officer, based on the information available on record, which were already filed by the assessee i.e., return of income, came to a conclusion that there is an escapement

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 92/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

section 147 rws 148 is made out against the assesse. As the reasons u/s 147 / 148 themselves are not supported by valid legal authority, consequent reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 495/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

section 147 rws 148 is made out against the assesse. As the reasons u/s 147 / 148 themselves are not supported by valid legal authority, consequent reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

ITA 494/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

For Respondent: Shri A.Sanjay for Ms V.Pushpa
Section 143(3)Section 148

section 147 rws 148 is made out against the assesse. As the reasons u/s 147 / 148 themselves are not supported by valid legal authority, consequent reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves