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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that :-14-: ITA. No:2031/Chny/2025 "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases

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

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

LATE ABDULLAH ABDULMAJEED, REP. BY L/H,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

reassessment being under section 148A, the subsequent\nproceedings was mandatorily required to be undertaken under the\nsubstituted provisions as laid down under the Finance Act, 2021. In the\nabsence of which, we are constrained to hold that the procedure adopted\nby the respondent-Department is in contravention to the statute i.e. the\nFinance Act, 2021, at the first instance. Secondly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Reassessment • cannot be made Wherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction after making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee, then the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 amounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the Ld.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents - The Hon’ble Bombay High Court

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

Reassessment • cannot be made Wherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction after making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee, then the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148 amounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the Ld.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents - The Hon’ble Bombay High Court

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Reassessment\ncannot be made\nWherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction\nafter making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee,\nthen the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148\namounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the\nLd.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (DCIT), CHENNAI-1, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Reassessment\ncannot be made\nWherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction\nafter making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee,\nthen the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148\namounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the\nLd.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents\n- The Hon'ble Bombay High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Reassessment\ncannot be made\nWherein it was held that assessing officer had allowed a deduction\nafter making inquiries and considering the reply of the assessee,\nthen the subsequent withdrawal of the same under Section 148\namounts to change of opinion which is invalid In this connection the\nLd.AR placed reliance on below judicial precedents\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court

GANAPATHI KANAGASABAI,VELLORE vs. ITO, WARD 1, VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

115 and other cited cases (supra). And as noted (supra) the\nHon'ble jurisdictional High Court (Single Bench) order in the case of Mark\nStudio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, held in favour of Revenue, was\nreversed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by order dated 24.06.2025 by holding\nas under:\n1.\nThis appeal impugns an order passed

AMMAPALAYAM BASUVAPTTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. Therefore, according to Ld AR, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed

AMMAPALAYAM BASUVAPTTI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) ERODE, ERODE

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. Therefore, according to Ld AR, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening of the assessment; and further pointed

SOUTHERN ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 22, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

reassessment proceedings upon a mere change of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that there was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the assessment for the issuance of notice beyond the period of four years." (e) Caprihans India Ltd. v. Tarun Seem, Dy. CIT [2003] 132 Taxman

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

115 JB of the Act.\n57.\nThe Id. AR relied on the submissions made by the assessee before\nthe Id. PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings, which are reproduced\nfrom page 28 to 32 of the impugned order. The Id. Senior Standing\nCounsel for Revenue vehemently argued that there was no discussion by\nthe Assessing Officer in the assessment

VERSATILE CARD TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED ,SIDCO,CHROMEPET,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MAIN BUILDING - IV FLOOR, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1392/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Versatile Card Technology Private Principal Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax, Chennai -3, Ac-21, 4Th Main Road, Sidco Income Tax Office, Main Industrial Estate, Building, Iv Floor, Thirumudivakkam, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. [Pan:Aabcv-0567-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Gopal Krishna Raju, Ca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

reassessment proceedings. Further, the PCIT without appreciating the fact that the assessee has credited the said excess depreciation of Rs.5,22,15,905/- of earlier 11 :-15-: ITA. No: 1392/Chny/2024 Assessment years to the “Reserves & Surplus” account in the Balance sheet as per the amended provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and also following the Guidance Note issued