DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

148A of the Act is not required to be followed. It is on this basis\nthat the notice under Section 148 was issued.\n9. As noted above, the short question to be considered by this Court is\nwhether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of\nlimitation as stipulated under Section

PALANISAMY SHANKARGANESH,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 1,(1), ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3544/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Palanisamy Shankarganesh The Income Tax Officer, Prop: Universal Communication, Vs. Ward-1(1), No.56, Mettur Road, Erode, Erode. Tamil Nadu-638 001. [Pan: Azsps4331D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr.Bhupendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr.Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

bogus purchase of computers Rs.24,31,290/- made from M/s. Advanced Computers and Mobiles India Private Limited for alleged failure of the appellant to substantiate the transaction. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without entering into the merits