DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

reassessment provisions.\nHowever, the provisions that are saved are those under Section 153B and\n153C, so that these three Sections 153A, 153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

B) section 271, section 271A, section 271AAA, section 271AAB, section271F, section271FB, section 272AA or section 272BB; (C) section 272, section 272B or section 273, as they stood immediately before the 1st day of April, 1989, in respect of an assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment years; (ja) an order

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act at Rs.10,000/-. First we takeup the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 306, 307 & 308/Mds/2011 3. The facts of the case are that in the assessment orders for the assessment year 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, the cost of construction of property of the appellant at 1/240, East Coast