MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 31 -: C.O.Nos.47to

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 31 -: C.O.Nos.47to

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

2). The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 348 ITR 439 (Bom), both in the computation of taxable long-term capital gains in the original return of income and in the computation that was submitted in response to the query of the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 31 -: C.O.Nos.47to

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed

2) of Section 153A\nwould be redundant and/or rewriting the said provisions, which is not permissible\nunder the law.\n13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the\nview taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the\nGujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE vs. KAMATCHIPURAM VELLINGIRI JAYARAMAN, COIMBATORE

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed, where as the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

reassess the income in respect of any issue which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings though the reasons for such issue were not included in the notice under section 148(2). The decisions of the Kerala High Court in Travancore Cements Ltd., [2009] 179 Taxman 117/305 ITR 170 (Kerala) and of the Punjab and Haryana

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

Section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

M/S. REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

Section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

Section 220(2) of the Act\n\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

Section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

REDINGTON DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, INTL TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the captioned appeals (ITA Nos

section 220(2) of the Act\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal, so as to\nenable the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with the law.\n3. Redington Distribution Pte Limited (the Company' or 'the\nAppellant/Assessee

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

2) Act of 1991 an intimation sent to the assessee under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be an order for the purposes of section 246 between June 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999, and under section 264 between October 1, 1991, and May 31, 1999. It is to be noted that the expressions "intimation" and "assessment order" have

M.R.PRASAD,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for all the

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

2) Act of 1991 an intimation sent to the assessee under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be an order for the purposes of section 246 between June 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999, and under section 264 between October 1, 1991, and May 31, 1999. It is to be noted that the expressions "intimation" and "assessment order" have