KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

reassessment proceedings 3 Notice under section 148 of the Act dated March 31, 2022, 132 issued by the Ld. AO 4 ROI filed on April 28, 2022, in response to notice under section 133 148 of the Act 5 Submission dated June 20, 2022, filed with the Ld. AO in 206 response to the notice under section

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

S.DEVENDRAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

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

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

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

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

PRAKASH,TRICHY vs. ITO, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 148 of the Act, and pointing out that ld. Assessing Officer was not sure whether income escaped assessment was more than "1,00,000/-. As per the assessees, the reopening was purely based on presumptions and reasons recorded were vague. Assessees also alleged that there was no live link between reasons recorded and formation of believe for escapement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

reassessment for AY 2010-11 and the assessment for AY 2012- 13 to AY 2014-15 were concluded after the search and the details of receipt of share capital from MJC and Enerk was accepted without any adjustment. The Transfer Pricing order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search

KRISHNAMOORTHY HARIOBHASKAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1506/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar, The Income Tax Officer, 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2Nd Street, Ward-2(1), Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. Tirupur. [Pan: Abkph 9735 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 148. The Counsel also referred to case laws of Rajeev Bansal vs. Union of India of High Court of Allahabad (453 ITR 153) and Rasikbhai Dhaiyabha Chauhan v. ACIT of High Court of Gujarat (151 Taxmann.com 310) in support of his contentions. It is also stated that on a similar issue the jurisdictional High Court in W.P.Nos

S THYAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.172/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-2007

reassessment proceedings, assessee submitted ledger accounts in support of its contention that the transactions considered for addition under section 2(22) (e) of the Act were between M/s.Skylift Cargo (P) Ltd and M/s. Embassy Tours & Travels (P) Ltd and not between assessee and M/s. Embassy Tours & Travels (P) Ltd. Assessee also asserted that the transactions were all genuine and through

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

233,03,09,786/- which included loss of Rs.2,12,94,977/- from 801C unit (Pantnagar). Thus, the primary issue to be decided in this ground is whether or not the AO was correct in notionally carrying forward and setting off the loss of 801C eligible Pantnagar unit for initial AY 2010-11 against the profits of the same unit

GANGADHARAM APPLIANCES LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1185/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2002-203. Gangadharam Appliances Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner By Successors Butterfly Of Income Tax, Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd, Company Range Ii(2) No.377, Old No.272, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaacg 1793P]

233. 4. As far as the amount written off as bad debts concerned, the Commissioner of Income tax should have found that this issue does not arise out of the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30-12-2009 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act and hence, cannot be considered

GANGADHARAM APPLIANCES LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1185/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2002-203. Gangadharam Appliances Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner By Successors Butterfly Of Income Tax, Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd, Company Range Ii(2) No.377, Old No.272, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaacg 1793P]

233. 4. As far as the amount written off as bad debts concerned, the Commissioner of Income tax should have found that this issue does not arise out of the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30-12-2009 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act and hence, cannot be considered

DCIT , TDS CIRCLE , COIMBATORE vs. M/S KOVAI MEDICAL CENTRE AND HOSPITAL LIMITED , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1004/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Kovai Medical Centre & Income Tax, V. Hospital Limited, Tds Circle, 99 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore - 641 014. [Pan: Aaack-9192-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit -Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

233/- and interest thereon u/s. 201(1A) of the Act at Rs. 34,91,836/- in all total of Rs. 74,91,069/-. The AO had also computed short deduction of TCS @ 1% on total scrap sales and computed on TCS at Rs. 21,635/- and interest thereon at Rs. 18,173/- in all total

THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,DHARMAPURI vs. JCIT, SALEM

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

reassessment proceedings were dismissed. The stand of Ld. AO, on merits, was also confirmed, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in State Bank of Patiala V/s CIT (272 ITR 54). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 5. We find that there could

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

233 (Pune) is erroneous as the facts of the cited case are distinguishable to the extent that in that case, it had been found that the distinguishable to the extent that in that case, it had been found that the distinguishable to the extent that in that case, it had been found that the incriminating material did not establish correlation

DCIT CIRCLE 1 , TIRUNELVELI vs. RMKV FASHION GARMENTS PVT. LTD. , TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI vs. M/S RM K V SILKS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience

DCIT CIRCLE 1 , TIRUNELVELI vs. RMKV FABRICS PVT. LTD. , TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyq आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1621/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1, Vs. 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 003. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1593/Chny/2017 & Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.1622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, Tirunelveli. [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Chny/2018 Cross Appeal By Revenue In Ita No.759/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Rmkv Silks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income 176F, Trivandrum Road, Tax, Tirunelveli – 627 003. Circle-1, [Pan: Aafcr 4024B] Tirunelveli.

reassessment every year. As one reaches close to the end of the warranty period, the probability that the warranty expenses will be incurred is considerably reduced and that should be reflected in the estimation amount. Whether this should be done through a pro rata reversal or otherwise would require assessment of historical trend. If warranty provisions are based on experience