D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, 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

reassessments were quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(2)", "143(3)", "139(5)", "11", "2(15)", "11(2)", "11(4A)", "13" ], "issues

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKUNDA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer stands null and void and the addition of Rs.1,40,67,364/- made us.2(22)(e) of the Act be deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 58. Having regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MUKILANSTRUCTURALS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer stands null and void and the addition of Rs.1,40,67,364/- made us.2(22)(e) of the Act be deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 58. Having regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MAC QUALITY BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer stands null and void and the addition of Rs.1,40,67,364/- made us.2(22)(e) of the Act be deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 58. Having regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S. MEADOW INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer stands null and void and the addition of Rs.1,40,67,364/- made us.2(22)(e) of the Act be deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 58. Having regard

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.MINAL CONSTRACTORS AND BUILDERS PVT LIT., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.642/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Mukunda Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Sai Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aahcp7751K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.643/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mugilan Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Vs. Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aajcm3182D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.644/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Mac Quality Builders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 198, 13Th Cross Street, Sri Sai Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Nagar, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Vs. Chennai 34. Chennai 600 097. [Pan:Aaecv8582B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer stands null and void and the addition of Rs.1,40,67,364/- made us.2(22)(e) of the Act be deleted. Thus, the ground raised by the Assessee is allowed. 58. Having regard

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment should be further reckoned as bad in law.” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated that the assessee has raised detailed objects of the assessee vide letter dated 12.03.2015 and 21.05.2013, but Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order which is required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment should be further reckoned as bad in law.” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated that the assessee has raised detailed objects of the assessee vide letter dated 12.03.2015 and 21.05.2013, but Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order which is required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment should be further reckoned as bad in law.” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated that the assessee has raised detailed objects of the assessee vide letter dated 12.03.2015 and 21.05.2013, but Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order which is required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

SRI AUROBINDO ASHRAM TRUST,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment should be further reckoned as bad in law.” 3. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the assessment order and stated that the assessee has raised detailed objects of the assessee vide letter dated 12.03.2015 and 21.05.2013, but Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order which is required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

reassessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B\nof the Act vide order dated 13.08.2021 as under:-\n-3-\nITA No.1542 /Chny/2024\n1. The case was selected for complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-\nassessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:-\nS.No.\nIssues\ni.\nSalary Income\nii.\nRefund Claim\niii.\nOther Income Reported in Schedule A-OI not credited to\nP&L Account

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

reassessment proceedings by the second respondent, ITA No 123 /Chny/2023 who is the jurisdictional assessing officer, without issuing any fresh notice as contemplated under section 148, but issuing notice dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(2) r/w 129 of the Act, which applies only for change in incumbent within the same jurisdiction, is also held to be invalid. 15

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.’ Sanction for issue of notice- “151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

15 of DTAA between India & USA and therefore the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40(a)(i) for alleged non-deduction of TDS was deleted. 8.4 The Ld. CIT, DR however argued that, even if the assessee was of the view that no TDS was deductible on the impugned payment as it was not liable to tax India, then

SG WIND FAARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

15 & 16, it is held as under: "15.On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for exercise of powers thereunder is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Once a search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the Assessing Officer

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

15 & 16, it is held as under: "15.On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for exercise of powers thereunder is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Once a search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the Assessing Officer

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

15 & 16, it is held as under: "15.On a plain reading of section 153A of the Act, it is evident that the trigger point for exercise of powers thereunder is a search under section 132 or a requisition under section 132A of the Act. Once a search or requisition is made, a mandate is cast upon the Assessing Officer

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

2) of\nsection 263 of the Act. Be that as it may, the settled principle, a\ncorrigendum could be passed rectifying minor typographic errors in main\norder, but, in the present case, an order passed with reference to an\nissue which is not part of the original order passed under section 263 of\nthe Act. Therefore, by no stretch