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

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. 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. 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

S. 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

S. ARAVIND,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

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

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

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

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

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

Reassessment completed u/s. 143(3) r/w. s. 147 of the Act 21.09.2021 Revision notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued by PCIT 18.11.2021 Revision order passed by PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act 11. On a careful reading of the impugned revision order of PCIT passed under section

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

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

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

EMPEE HOLDINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

143(2) of the 1961 Act and reopening of the concluded assessment was sought to be done by Revenue by invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act within four years from end of the relevant assessment year and hence proviso to Section 147 of the 1961 Act is not applicable to instance case before us. Thus