BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

27 results for “reassessment”+ Section 194Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai63Chandigarh30Chennai27Jaipur17Bangalore13Delhi11Pune9Ahmedabad8Kolkata8Hyderabad6Visakhapatnam4Cochin4Rajkot4Raipur2Allahabad2Ranchi2SC1Surat1Indore1Jodhpur1Patna1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 14721Section 14815Section 143(3)12Section 4011Reassessment11Reopening of Assessment11Addition to Income11TDS8Natural Justice8Double Taxation/DTAA

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

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

ITA 2057/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R
Section 143(3)

reassessment proceedings has been considered in the original proceedings, reopening of assessment is invalid and cannot be sustained because there was nothing but a change of opinion because of achange in the officer. 6.2.The Learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that the main ground for reopening the assessment was income escaping assessment on account of non deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. GOVINDA RAJULU SRINIVASAN, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1245/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 43B5
Deduction5
04 Sept 2025
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C. Yamuna, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 40A(3)

194A) TDS Statement - 50780 Insurance commission (Section 194D) The assessee had filed his return of income on 30.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 35,66,120/-for the A.Y. 2014-15. It is noticed from the Department Software (Insight-High Risk CRIU/ VRU Information) that the assessee had sold a immovable property jointly and received sale consideration of Rs.7

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1561/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

reassessment order invalid. Since, no infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned action, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing this legal plea of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of confirming

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1312/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

reassessment order invalid. Since, no infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned action, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing this legal plea of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of confirming

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1311/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

reassessment order invalid. Since, no infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned action, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing this legal plea of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of confirming

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

ITA 1274/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.Nishanth Rao, JCIT

reassessment order invalid. Since, no infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned action, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) dismissing this legal plea of the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 28. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is against the Ld. CIT(A)’s action of confirming

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

reassessment proceedings. :-9-: ITA. No: 746/Chny/2025 25. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentafour Software Employees' Welfare Foundation (supra), decided on 05.08.2019 as well in the case Janak Shanthilal Mehta (supra) decided on 16.12.2020 had held that omission on the part of the AO to follow the binding directions

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI vs. BAY FORGE LTD, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as academic

ITA 1462/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1462/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O No.76/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.1462/Chny/2019] The Dcit, Bay Forge Limited, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Palayanoor Po Chennai. Vedanthangal Road, Pukkath Village, Madurantakam Taluk, Kancheepuram – 603 308. Pan: Aaacf 0453D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Raghav Menon, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143Section 40Section 43B

section 194A(3) (iii) and hence it was not liable to deduct tax on the interest payments. Taking into account the facts, circumstances and the evidences furnished by the appellant I am inclined to accept the contentions of the appellant. The disallowance of interest expenditure u/s.40(a) (ia) amounting to Rs.7,78,58,259/- requires to be deleted. This ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THANJAVUR vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3078/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3078/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of City Union Bank Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 24B, Narayana, Circle-2(1) Gandhi Nagar, Thanjavur. Kumbakonam-612 001. Pan: Aaacc-1287-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. S.Ananthan, C.A. & Ms.Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Ananthan, C.A. &
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 40

reassessment order, AO had disallowed interest payment of Rs.1,35,56,446/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for not deducting tax at source. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) following the ITAT order in assessee’s own case [in Department appeal in ITA Nos.1315 & 1316/Chny/2018 dated

SATISH KHANNA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:415/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. Sivakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

reassessment which action of the AO is gross- defiance to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) and against the Hon’ble Bombay High Court :-9-: ITA. No.:415 /Chny/2025 in the case of Asian Paints Ltd., (supra) and Bharat Jayanthi Lal Patel (supra), wherein, their Lordships have given

ANAND ARUNRAJ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRLCE-5(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam S. Mukundan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

reassessment proceedings. 25. We find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pentafour Software Employees' Welfare Foundation (supra), decided on 05.08.2019 as well in the case Janak Shanthilal Mehta (supra) decided on 16.12.2020 had held that omission on the part of the AO to follow the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1, , CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1170/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Limited vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. UOI [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom) to undertake suitable actions We also request your goodself that once the objection is disposed off and before framing of assessment pursuant to the aforesaid notice

IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1170 & 1171/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. Idfc First Bank Ltd., The Pcit / Acit, [Earlier Known As Idfc Bank Ltd.], Corporate Cirlce-1(1), Krm Tower, 7Th Floor, No.1, Chennai. Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. [Pan: Aadci 6523 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh –
Section 147Section 148Section 263

reassessment proceedings as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Limited vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. UOI [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom) to undertake suitable actions We also request your goodself that once the objection is disposed off and before framing of assessment pursuant to the aforesaid notice

ITO,, TUTICORIN vs. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED,, TUTICORIN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 1043/CHNY/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Renga rajan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 143Section 147Section 154Section 195Section 2Section 201

Reassessment u/s.143 (3) r/w section 147. 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the findings in the case of (CIT vs. Black Wood Hodge (India) (P) Ltd. 1971 - 81 ITR 807 cal) which is similarly applicable to the facts of this case. It has been held in that case that "Under section 201 a person is deemed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 148 , dated August 30, 2010 . During the reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 148 , dated August 30, 2010 . During the reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 148 , dated August 30, 2010 . During the reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

section 148 , dated August 30, 2010 . During the reassessment , the appellant pleaded that entered into an agreement with M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014 in ITA No.1075/Chny/2014) - 6 -: ITA Nos.1417 & 1421/Chny/2016 Limited (“SICCL”) on December 29, 2006 to develop 196.97 acres of agriculture land situated at Chauma Village, Dist

ACIT,NCC7(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S PRABHA ENGINEERS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 944/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 40Section 80I

section 2(28A). 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it; is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. As is evident, the revenue is aggrieved by quashing of reassessment proceedings on legal grounds as well as deletion

KANAKARATHNA MEDIA PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10(6),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes only

ITA 679/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 679 /Chny/2020 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kanakarathna Media Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, “No. 7 Palat Madhavan Road, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(6), Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aadck-3117-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J. Vignesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 : 06.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M:

For Appellant: Shri J. Vignesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 144

reassessment proceedings, were not properly authorized and served as required by law, reasons recorded are not proper and were not provided to the appellant in spite of request made for the same, the notice was not accompanied with the reasons recorded as was required thus the entire proceedings are against the law and various judicial pronouncements. b. No speaking order