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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R.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

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

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

P. KARUNANITHI,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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

3) of the Act as well as by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.(SS)A. No. 1/Chny/2020 dated 09.04.2021 relevant to the block assessment period 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1996 and 01.04.1996 to 15.07.1996, the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order passed under section 143

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. THIRUTHURAIPOONDI TIRUVENKADAM VIVEKANANDAM DHINAKARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1422 & 1423/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 1995-96 & 1996-97 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Thiruthuraipoondi Tiruvenkadam Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vivekanandam Dhinakaran, Investigation Building, 5, Iv Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Chennai – 34. Karpagam Gardens, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Abkpd2771Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 06.10.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Years 1995-96 & 1996-97. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Shri Ttv Dhinakaran Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 1995 96 & 2

3) of the Act as well as by following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in I.T.(SS)A. No. 1/Chny/2020 dated 09.04.2021 relevant to the block assessment period 01.04.1986 to 31.03.1996 and 01.04.1996 to 15.07.1996, the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order passed under section 143

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

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

3), (5) and (5A)], be completed-\n(i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any\nperson in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction 22 contained in\nan order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263,\nor section 264 or in an order of any court