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

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

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

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

reassessment — not on basis of mere change of opinion —law same before and after amendment by direct tax laws. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, 159 ITR 956 held that no case u/s 148 is made out when the facts were known all along with to the revenue while making the original assessment

WHEELS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 147 which are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to 'escaped income

ACIT LTU 2 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. WHEELS INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

section 147 which are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to 'escaped income

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

189 ITR 786 (Pat.) \"Held, (i) that the fact a particular\nconstruction had not been shown in the accounts of the assessee was not relevant\nsince this circumstance had not been recorded as one of the reasons for initiating\nthe proceedings under section 147(a); (ii) that the Tribunal had found, after\nexamining the entire record, that there had been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI vs. MS.AARTHI SCANS, KOVILPATTI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

reassessment on the basis of change of opinion will amount to giving the power of review to the AO which is contrary to the scheme of the IT Act. Accordingly it was decided that AO cannot assume jurisdiction to re-assess on the basis of change of opinion on same set of facts. As there is complete absence

WALLACE SPORTS AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

u/s 148. The assesse:e firm had requested the AO to furnish the reasons for 5 reopening, which was duly furnished on 24.10.2016, the gist of which is reproduce as under: “The assessee has debited an interest cost of Rs30,46,435/- towards interest arid finance charges in the P&L account The break-up of the same cornpNses interest

SAKTHI POULTRY FARM,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

u/s 143(2) issued on 25.02.2005 post the case on 04.03.2005. The notice was duly acknowledged by the assessee.” From the above, it is apparent that scrutiny assessment in this case has been taken up since survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted. However, the Assessing Officer failed to take cognizance of the statement recorded under section 133A

SAKTHI POULTRY FARM,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

u/s 143(2) issued on 25.02.2005 post the case on 04.03.2005. The notice was duly acknowledged by the assessee.” From the above, it is apparent that scrutiny assessment in this case has been taken up since survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted. However, the Assessing Officer failed to take cognizance of the statement recorded under section 133A

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2347/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

189, the Ld. counsel submitted that on identical circumstances, the Madras High Court found in the case before it, the return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act and no notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and thereafter issued notice under Section 148 of the Act for processing the reassessment. Even in that

ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (3), CHENNAI vs. M/S LAND MARVEL HOMES , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1055/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Land Marvel Homes, The Acit, V. 45-47, Old No. 22-23, Central Circle -3(3), 3Rd Floor, 1St Main Road, Chennai. Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan:Aabfl-4387-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of change of opinion as an in-built test to check abuse of power

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought