M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. KATHIRVEL,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

P. NALLUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. PARAMASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

R.EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

143(3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the return of income income income filed filed filed by by by assessee assessee assessee stood stood stood accepted accepted accepted by by by the the the Department. Department. Department

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s. 143(2) of the Act, therefore originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the return of income income income filed filed filed by by by assessee assessee assessee stood stood stood accepted accepted accepted by by by the the the Department. Department. Department

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

147 is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that reopening and consequent reassessment is bad in law. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there exist no reasons for reopening the case of the appellant and hence the reopening as well as the consequent reassessment

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

u/s. 143(3) of\nthe Act as per section 153 of the Act\n57. On an examination of the above, it is noted that the Assessing\nOfficer has limitation for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the\nAct upto 30.09.2019, which means the assessment is pending before the\nAssessing Officer, but, however, issued notice dated 23.09.2019 under\nsection

PALANISAMY GOUNDER LOGANATHAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals stand allowed

143(3) or under section\n147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act\ncould have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant\n assessment year, unless the AO demonstrates in the recorded reasons\nthat income had escaped assessment as a consequence of assessee's\nfailure to disclose truly and fully