M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. PARAMASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. KATHIRVEL,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

S. EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

P. NALLUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

reassessment is bad in law. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale of agricultural land is exempt. 13. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the sale of agricultural land as income from capital gain. 14. For that the Commissioner

SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

reassessment has been made under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. Consequently, an appeal by the assessee on those

CRR LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

section 143(3) of the Act. In the reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act also

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

143(3)", "Section 11", "Section 11(2)", "Section 11(4A)", "Section 2(15)", "Section 139(5)", "Section 153", "Section 12A" ], "issues": "The primary issues were whether the reassessment

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

reassessment proceedings are not valid since the Assessing Officer is barred in initiating the proceedings under section 148 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143