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

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by issuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2022, determining the total assessed income at ₹1,70,77,591/- as against the returned income of ₹61,371/-. And as noted supra, the ibid assessment order didn’t contain any finding or direction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of the additions made, which

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

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is\ntime to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by\nissuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised\nreturn of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our\nattention to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

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

reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is\ntime to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by\nissuing a notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to the revised\nreturn of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. He drew our\nattention to the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

Reassessment Proceedings initiated is barred by limitation 3.1 The Ld. AO erred in facts and law without appreciating the fact that the Guarantee fee received by the Appellant amounting to INR 3,908,249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section

KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order without considering that his powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer

KANDASAMY GOVINDARAJ,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHARMAPURI

In the result both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 364 & 365 /Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kandasamy Govindaraj, Ito, 56, Anna Nagar, Rayappa Colony, Vs. Ward -1, Kumarasamypet Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri – 636 703. [Pan: Anppg-2860-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 249 (4) (b), thereby dismissing the appeal on that ground without considering the fact that there was no advance tax payable by the appellant. :-2-: ITA. Nos.:364 & 365/Chny/2025 3. Without prejudice, the learned First Appellate Authority erred in simply endorsing the assessment order without considering that his powers are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

section 143(3) of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that notice issued u/s.148 and consequent reassessment proceedings is invalid because, Assessing Officer had issued reassessment notice u/s.148 of the Act on 23.09.2016 and said notice was issued before expiry of time limit for issue of assessment notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The AR referring

ACIT, NAGERCOIL vs. SHRI J. RAJ PRABHU, NAGERCOIL

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassess any issue relevant to income which comes to is notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reason for such Issue has not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148. 47.4 Applicability - This amendment has been made applicable with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1989 and will apply

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

249 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR\n613 (Delhi), summarised the conclusion as follows:\n\n“(i) Under Section 148 of the Act, the issue of notice to the Assessee and\nservice of such notice upon the Assessee are jurisdictional requirements that\nmust be mandatorily complied with. They are not mere procedural\nrequirements.\n(ii) For the AO to exercise jurisdiction

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return o{his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. 24 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. 24 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. 24 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. 24 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment for asst. year 2008-09 was done after a considerable time gap. 24 - - ITA 568 to 572/M/17 Moreover, those persons who had repaid in cash may be worried about the provision of sec.269T of the Act, which those persons may have violated by making repayment in cash to the assessee. The AO was not satisfied with the explanation offered

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim