THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

reassessment under Section 147/148 should only be issued in accordance with the new Section 147, and where the original assessment had been made under Section 143(3) then in view of the proviso to Section 147, the notice under section 148 would be illegal if issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The same

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

36, to that effect, for all the years, have been filed and the same are kept on record. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the impugned addition on legal grounds as well as on merits whereas Ld. CIT-DR has supported the findings given by lower authorities. The case was put up for clarification which was duly been

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

36, to that effect, for all the years, have been filed and the same are kept on record. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and assailed the impugned addition on legal grounds as well as on merits whereas Ld. CIT-DR has supported the findings given by lower authorities. The case was put up for clarification which was duly been

PLANTIUM HOLDING P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3436/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Platinum Holdings Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.2/1, Abu Garden, Omr Road, Central Circle-3(4) Vs. Navalur, Chennai-600 103. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-8781-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

section 153A in respect of unabated assessments. 4. The material relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm the additions was not found during the course of the search of the Appellant. The said material was already available with the Assessing Officer which had been collected in the course of the search of another entity. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX NON CORP CIRCLE II MADURAI, MADURAI vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

reassessment proceedings for those\nyears were pending.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the assessee originally claimed\ndeduction of Rs.21,03,27,765/-u/s.36(1)(viia), computed at 7.5%\nof total income plus 10% of aggregate average rural advances, as per\nthe statutory formula. The AO observed that the actual provision\ncreated in the books of account for bad and doubtful debts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORP CIRCLE II MADURAI, MADURAI vs. VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LIMITED, VIRUDHUNAGAR

reassessment proceedings for those\nyears were pending.\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the assessee originally claimed\ndeduction of Rs.21,03,27,765/-u/s.36(1)(viia), computed at 7.5%\nof total income plus 10% of aggregate average rural advances, as per\nthe statutory formula. The AO observed that the actual provision\ncreated in the books of account for bad and doubtful debts

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

reassessment notices ITA No.567 /Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 & SP No.24/Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 Shri Jesudason Biji :: 16 :: has also observed that if the law permits the revenue to take further steps in the matter they shall be at liberty to do so. 6. Having taken note of the substituted sections 147-151 of the Act by the Finance

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

MANICKAM CHETTIAR VELMURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

SUPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

SAPPAHIRE EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD,, TRICHY

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

THANARAJ SUMATHI,MAYILADUTHURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2031/Chny/2025 यनिाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2019-20 Thanaraj Sumathi, Income Tax Officer, No.3/25, North Street, Vs. Ward-1 Moovalur, Kumbakonam. Mayiladuthurai – 609806. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Knyps-1061-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit. सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

CHAHIDA BEGAM,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY RANGE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot

LOGANATHAN DHANDAPANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

36 With respect to the arguments of the Revenue, i.e., the notification dated 29th March 2022 provides that the Scheme so framed is applicable only 'to the extent' provided in Section 144B of the Act and Section 144B of the Act does not refer to issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and hence, the notice cannot