DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date ie., 31.07.2008. On 16.03.2009, a survey was carried

TROPICAL STONES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1214/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-09

section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued (i) by the then A.O. on 3110812009 asking the assessee to submit the details to substantiate its claim in the return of income. The assessee was requested to attend on 18/09/2009 at 02.00 p.m. The records indicate that the assessee did not respond to this notice. The assessee compliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TUTICORIN vs. ATHISAYAPANI PRAVIN GEORGE, KAVALKINARU, TIRUNELVELI

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

u/s 250 dated 29.11.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A). 2.0 We would like to take the appeal of the Revenue first. Through the aforementioned appeal Revenue has raised 4 grounds of appeal, inter-alia, challenging action of the CIT(A) in deleting additions by Ld. AO on account of notional interest, addition of allowing exempt income even though assesse

ATHISAYA PANI PRAVIN GEORGE,KAVALKINARU RATHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAXN WARD,, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result the appeal of the department is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.180/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2021-2022

u/s 250 dated 29.11.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A). 2.0 We would like to take the appeal of the Revenue first. Through the aforementioned appeal Revenue has raised 4 grounds of appeal, inter-alia, challenging action of the CIT(A) in deleting additions by Ld. AO on account of notional interest, addition of allowing exempt income even though assesse

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1(1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ALLIANCE GRANIMARMO PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

u/s 44AB. The Ld. DR fiercely opposed the relief accorded by the Ld. First Appellate Authority by relying on the order of the Ld. AO. 9.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assesse stated that it is customary in this line of business where the assessees are required to pay, as per government rules seignorage fees on the entire blocks

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

46A of the IT Rules. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Wind Turbine operations, Energy Conservation Projects, Civil Constructions, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 admitting ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice U/s.143

TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

46A of the IT Rules. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of Wind Turbine operations, Energy Conservation Projects, Civil Constructions, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012 admitting ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice U/s.143

K.GURUMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO as aforesaid for ay: 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide separate assessment orders, the assessee filed separate appeal(s) with Ld.CIT(A) for both the assessment years. The assessee filed fresh evidences before learned CIT(A) to substantiate its case but both the appeals were

K.GURUMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 4. Aggrieved by an assessment framed by the AO as aforesaid for ay: 2011-12 and 2012-13 vide separate assessment orders, the assessee filed separate appeal(s) with Ld.CIT(A) for both the assessment years. The assessee filed fresh evidences before learned CIT(A) to substantiate its case but both the appeals were