SIVAKUMARAN PUGAZHENDHI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT,, CHENNAI-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

revision order u/s. 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment framed by A.O i.e., the reassessment order dated 23.11.2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w 147

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

revision u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2013, the assumption of jurisdiction u/ s 147 of the Act to cover up the said lapse should be reckoned as fatal to such assumption of jurisdiction and ought to have appreciated further that having not demonstrated the availability of fresh materials, the stand of the appellant would get fortified, thereby vitiating

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

147 of the Act is bad in law. (b)The matter for which proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was invoked is a subject matter of appeal Pending before the First Appellate Authority. As per clause (c) of explanation-1 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked when the subject matter

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 of the Act. Even if for any reason, the assessee had not challenged the validity of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act by filing appeal against the order framed u/s.147 of the Act, it can be challenged in the appeal against an order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act revising the invalid order u/s.147

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

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

263 of the Act has not become final and ought to have appreciated that the further appeal against the said revision order is pending before the ITAT, Chennai Bench for decision. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having not cross verified with the purchasers, inclusion of the said amount of Rs.3 Crores as part of the sale consideration

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

u/s. 263 of the Act. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR :-15-: ITA. Nos:1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions should be satisfied before jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is exercised

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

u/s. 263 of the Act. For that, let us take the guidance of judicial precedence laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR :-15-: ITA. Nos:1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 83(SC) wherein their Lordship have held that twin conditions should be satisfied before jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is exercised

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)

revision powers was not subject matter of assessment proceedings, then for the purpose of limitation date of assessment goes back to first reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) rws 147 of the Act dated 28.03.2014 and if you go by date of said assessment order, then show cause notice issued u/s 263

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

147 has not been\nsatisfied. We therefore hold that reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-\n09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act\ndated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and\nquashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed.\"\n4). The Delhi bench

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law, therefore, such proceedings could not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re- assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment.” 14. He further placed reliance upon the following decision

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

revise the assessment order, in case PCIT satisfies himself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In other words, in order to invoke jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, twin conditions embedded therein must be satisfied. Further, even if the order passed