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 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

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 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

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

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed

THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,DHARMAPURI vs. JCIT, SALEM

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistcial purposes to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1188/Chny/2016 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Dharmapuri District Central Jcit बनाम/ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Range-Iii No.81/10H, Bye Pass Road, Salem. Vs. Dharmapuri – 636 701 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaat-3148-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19-04-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13-07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act had to be restricted to that amount only. Since the language of the statute is clear and is not capable of any other interpretation, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration by this court. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 8. Similar

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