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

section 80HHC, was held to be wrongly allowed in the original assessment. Identically, in the case of Happy Forging Ltd. v. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Section 148 of the\nAct r.w.s 153A of the Act to assess or reassess the income for 'relevant\n assessment year or years' and for this purpose. In such a situation, when\nthe AO has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act and a\nnotice, if at all issued, would be void ab initio for patent

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

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

reassessment or by way of rectification of mistake. In a case of this nature the Revenue is not without remedy. Section 263 of the Act empowers the ITA No. 1036/Mds/2016. :- 16 -: Commissioner to review an order which is prejudicial to the Revenue. In Bawa Abhai Singh’s case [2002] 253

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. LIFE LINE AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

reassess the total income of six years\n:-15-:\nITA. No:1630/Chny/2025\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year\nin which the search was conducted and for the relevant assessment year\nor years. Explanation 1 below section 153A of the Act defines the\nexpression relevant assessment. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY MOOLIMANGALAM VAISHNAVA PRIYA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was\nconducted and for the relevant assessment year or years. Explanation 1\nbelow section 153A of the Act defines the expression relevant assessment.\nIn order to make an assessment for assessment year which falls beyond six\n assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER PALANIAPPA GOUNDER MARIAPPAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the\n assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was\nconducted and for the relevant assessment year or years. Explanation 1\nbelow section 153A of the Act defines the expression relevant assessment.\nIn order to make an assessment for assessment year which falls beyond six\n assessment