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

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

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

u/s 143(3).” Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.Senior DR relied on the assessment order and also relied on reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. The ld. Senior DR filed copy of audit objection that audit has raised objections for non-deduction of TDS, payment of loan was claimed as business expenditure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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