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) of section 148. Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.” 5.2. If the aforesaid provision of the Act is analyzed, we find that after

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s.147 of the Act on account of substantial cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts, in the absence of original returns of income. The core dispute before us revolves around the nature and source of cash deposits, the sustainability of addition u/s.68/69A of the Act, the powers of the Ld.CIT(A) to substitute the charging section

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN REP. BY LEGAL HEIR S SUNDARAM,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings-initiated u/s.147 of the Act on account of substantial cash deposits in the assessee’s bank accounts, in the absence of original returns of income. The core dispute before us revolves around the nature and source of cash deposits, the sustainability of addition u/s.68/69A of the Act, the powers of the Ld.CIT(A) to substitute the charging section

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

2) 12. For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C.” :-3-: ITA. No: 3096/Chny/2019 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 19.10.2006, admitting total income of Rs. 1,84,740/-. The case has been

POSHAK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

251(1) (a). 3. Limitation:- 3.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the order u/s. 154 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation since four years have expired from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed as per section

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

2. It is to be noted that certain loan accounts\nare still not closed during the impugned year, since these account balances are\nrunning accounts which can be observed from the respective ledgers accounts\nattached (papers book 5). Hence the Id.AR submitted that these amounts cannot\nbe made as addition by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year as unexplained credits

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

2. It is to be noted that certain loan accounts\nare still not closed during the impugned year, since these account balances are\nrunning accounts which can be observed from the respective ledgers accounts\nattached (papers book 5). Hence the Id.AR submitted that these amounts cannot\nbe made as addition by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year as unexplained credits

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1013/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2002-03 M/S. Ashok Leyland Finance Limited The Assistant Commissioner Of [Now Indusind Bank Ltd.], Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), No. 115/116, G.N. Chetty Road, 121 Mahathma Gandhi Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaca4656P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 20.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2002-03. The First Ground Challenged By The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & The Second Ground Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of ₹.2,34,03,271/- Under 2

251 r.w.s. 263 of the Act on 30.06.2006. While passing the order under section 263 of the Act re-determining the income of the assessee at ₹.56,69,58,930/-, it was observed that in Column No. 21(i)(B)(a) of the Audit Report in Form 3CD furnished along with the return of income, the Auditor had certified that

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon\nthe Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere\nchange of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that\nthere was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the\nassessment for the issuance of notice beyond the period of four years

YCH LOGISTICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment proceedings were legally initiated was not kept open. Even on the third question the Tribunal's view was erroneous that even though this point went to the root of the jurisdiction and was a pure question of law, merely because the point was initially raised and not pressed when the matter was taken up before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner

PANCHATCHARAM,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) Validity of reopening the assessment. The learned assessing officer ought to have verified the veracity of statement made by the appellant accepting LTCG for a specific value before investigation wing in view of the fact that the appellant has not even completed primary education before proceeding to issue notice under section 148, which best can be termed suspicion

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act collapses.\nIn the absence of any material to demonstrate that the impugned amounts\nrepresented unexplained investments made during the year under consideration,\nthe addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted in toto. The Id. AR accordingly\nprayed that not only the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A) be upheld, but also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in Appeal as he thinks fit. as he thinks