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)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

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)

reassessment proceedings. In the light of the legal positions discussed above, other items of addition made by Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of additions made in respect of other items of additions. Thus all other grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. In the result

ITO, WARD-2,, PERAMBALUR vs. SHRI S.B. RAJA,, ARIYALUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3189/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri. S.B. Raja, Ward -2, V. No. 14, North Street, Perambalur. Soorkuzhi, Andimadam, Udayarpalayam Tulak, Ariyalur 621 801. [Pan: Anzpr 3754L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. I.P. Roopa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022

section 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 3.3. What these 5 cases cited above show that as long as assessee has given truthful disclosure of the primary facts, he cannot be hit with reopening u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. It is for Income Tax Department to assess or reassess the case in the light of primary facts

INDIAN CO-OP NETWORK FOR WOMEN LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

section 263 of the Act. Therefore, he set aside the re-assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the issue in reassessment framed by AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s

ABT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

reassessment proceedings, then two years period contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 263 would begin to run from date of original assessment. The Hon’ble Madras High Court while considering the issue had followed decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293

ABT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 61 & 62/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Abt Limited, The Principal Commissioner Of 180, Race Course Road, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Coimbatore 641 018. Chennai-2, Chennai. [Pan:Aabca8398K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2, Chennai, Dated 04.03.2021 & 05.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively Challenging The Revision Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

reassessment proceedings, then two years period contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 263 would begin to run from date of original assessment. The Hon’ble Madras High Court while considering the issue had followed decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293

VINAYAKA MEDICAL CARE CENTRE PVT LTD,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 90/Chny/ 2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassessment proceedings, then two years period contemplated 18 under sub-section (2) of section 263 would begin to run from date of original assessment. The Hon’ble Madras High Court while considering the issue had followed decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs.Alagendran Finance Ltd. (293

VAIDYANATHAN KALAIVANI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Section 263 of the Act;\nIII. While going through the notice dated 20.05.2021 u/s 142(1) of the Act, we\nfind that no specific question was ever raised by the AO with regard to\napplicability of circular No. 8/2018 (F.No. 370142 / 07/ 2018-TPL) dated\n26.12.2018 to the facts of the case;\nIV. The Id. Assessing Officer framed reassessment

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and allow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and allow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of\nnullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view\nthat the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\nWe therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and\nallow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee

DCIT LTU 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assesse and Revenue are dealt as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Insurance Company Limited, Large Tax Payer Unit, Vishranthi Melaram Towers, Chennai. No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.491, 492, 493, 494, 495 & 496 /Chny/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S.Royal Sundaram General Large Tax Payer Unit, Insurance Company Limited, Chennai. Vishranthi Melaram Towers, No.2/319, Rajiv Gandhi Salai(Omr), Karapakkam, Chennai-600 097. [Pan: Aabcr7106G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.Sanjay For Ms V.Pushpa, Sr.Standing Counsel For It Dept. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025

reassessment order arising therefrom would be a case of nullity and an order being void ab initio. Accordingly, we are of the view that the proceedings u/s 148 are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We therefore quash the proceedings u/s 148 as being bad in law and allow the grounds of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee