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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

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

u/s 147. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri J. Prabakar, FCA, first of all argued that CIT(A) has erred while holding that the impugned order of the AO i.e., the speaking order is not order passed u/s.147 of the Act and that an appeal against such order is legally untenable in the given facts and circumstances

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

147 rws 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(e) have been initiated separately for the year under consideration. Computation of income and demand notice u/s 156 of the Act is issued.” 10. The above reassessment

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

reassessment proceedings objected to re-opening of the concluded assessment on jurisdictional ground, wherein, it was claimed that the formation of opinion later to the issuance of intimation u/s.143(1)(a) tantamount to change of opinion and hence only on fresh facts coming to the knowledge of the AO, the assessment can be re-opened. Secondly, it was submitted

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law.\nTherefore, all the grounds raised by the appellant upon the levy of the\npenalty are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the\npenalty levied amounting Rs.1,11,89,533/- for the AY 2015-16.”\n23.\nAggrieved by the order

THE KUMBAKONAM CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. CIT (APPEALS), -

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

penalty. Thus, an order u/s 251 is passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority qua an order appealed against u/s 246. The most essential ingredient for appeal to be filed u/s 246 and for the Ld. First Appellate Authority to pass an order u/s 251 is the presence of element of assessee being “aggrieved”. 5.3 Coming to the grounds