BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

55 results for “reassessment”+ Section 281clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi395Mumbai304Bangalore143Jaipur128Chennai55Kolkata49Surat47Chandigarh38Hyderabad27Guwahati25Allahabad20Pune19Agra18Indore17Nagpur15Jodhpur15Ahmedabad13Visakhapatnam12Raipur12Rajkot11Patna11Lucknow8Cuttack7Amritsar6Karnataka4Telangana3Cochin3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Calcutta1Dehradun1SC1

Key Topics

Section 153A70Section 143(3)54Addition to Income44Section 13237Section 14731Section 153C27Section 14819Section 25015Section 6913Disallowance

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

reassessment and its conditions are completely different and distinct for the conditions prescribed by the law laid ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited (supra). Therefore, in light of the undisputed facts that for the assessment years

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

12
Reopening of Assessment8
Capital Gains7

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

reassessment and its conditions are completely different and distinct for the conditions prescribed by the law laid ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited (supra). Therefore, in light of the undisputed facts that for the assessment years

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

reassessment and its conditions are completely different and distinct for the conditions prescribed by the law laid ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited (supra). Therefore, in light of the undisputed facts that for the assessment years

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

reassessment and its conditions are completely different and distinct for the conditions prescribed by the law laid ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of PCIT, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Private Limited (supra). Therefore, in light of the undisputed facts that for the assessment years

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. LEELA DISTILLERIES (P) LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2714/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. LEELA DISTILLERIES (P) LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2716/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. LEELA DISTILLERIES (P) LTD., PONDICHERRY

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2715/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KAYCEE DISTILLERIES, THIRUSSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2711/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KAYCEE DISTILLERIES, THIRUSSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2712/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KAYCEE DISTILLERIES, THIRUSSUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 2713/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

reassessment only when some incriminating material has been found. All these aspects had been referred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in case of All cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and order of Special Bench dated 6.7.2012 has been referred. 6.1 The Special bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. (supra), has held that provisions of section

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

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

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

281,80,97,656/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions Contract payments made to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. 20,00,000 Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Thakur 21,28,32,313 Prasad Sao & Sons P Ltd Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Serajuddin

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

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

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

281,80,97,656/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions Contract payments made to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. 20,00,000 Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Thakur 21,28,32,313 Prasad Sao & Sons P Ltd Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Serajuddin

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

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

ITA 2283/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

281,80,97,656/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions Contract payments made to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. 20,00,000 Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Thakur 21,28,32,313 Prasad Sao & Sons P Ltd Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Serajuddin

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

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

ITA 2281/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

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)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

281,80,97,656/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made the following additions Contract payments made to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt Ltd. 20,00,000 Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Thakur 21,28,32,313 Prasad Sao & Sons P Ltd Provisions made reducing amounts from contract receipts received from M/s. Serajuddin

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

281/-). 13. However, the re-assessment order dated 30.12.2019 came to be passed in terms of Section 147 of the Act in rejecting the contentions of the assessee in adding back a sum of Rs.1,13,79,142/ - as Long Term Capital Gains and a sum of Rs.12,76,142/- as interest income in addition to the interest income already

SMT.PREMA DEVI, L/R OF LATE.SHRI. DHARMICHAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 564/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. Income Tax, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Central Circle 2(1), Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 153CSection 153D

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A: Provided that no notice shall be issued under this section unless --- (i) the Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned belong to such other person; and (ii) the books of account or documents or assets

BIOMED HITECH INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for 7

ITA 1039/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.M.Sanjeev Adithya, C.A ""For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha,JCIT,D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)

reassessed the income under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 18.03.2013 determining the assessed total income at ₹ 17,06,62,317/- by making additions towards disallowance under Section 37(1) of the Act at ₹2,40,13,212/- and waiver of principal component under One Time Settlement Scheme (O.T.S) at ₹.7,74,73,061/-. Aggrieved, the assessee

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

reassessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that total consideration in the agreement was Rs. 15 Crs. while it is claimed by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 47 -: assessee that they had only received Rs. 12 Crs. It was submitted that assessee received Rs. 4.25 Crs. and then paid to ‘Indian bank’ to clear the loan taken