ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994-95.” Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year

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

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

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

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

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

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

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

v. Orient Craft Limited(supra), only tangible material is required and it is not necessary that there should be a fresh material for assuming jurisdiction u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn to para 18 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited(supra) and it was submitted

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD.,CUDDALORE vs. DCIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, CUDDALLORE vs. M/S VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERTATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-II,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPRUAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

THE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,VILLUPURAM vs. DCIT, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE,, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

2 of the assessment order. Accordingly, reassessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.03.2015 by making disallowance of deduction of Rs.3,47,01,173/- towards release of provisions and non-statutory reserves. Another disallowance was made on account of deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act on account of non-creation of reserve and doubtful

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 28(iv). In view of the above, the amount of Rs.380,25,24, 600/- treated as capital gains by the assessee is required to be assessed as business income. 2. Provision for Warranty: 2.1 During the Financial Year 2007-08, the company has made provision for warranty for Rs.82,47,61,000/- and utilized a sum of Rs.54

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

v. CIT, reported in (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) wherein it was held as under:- “9. …Similarly, section 195 imposes a statutory obligation on any person responsible for paying to a non-resident any sum "chargeable under the provisions of the Act", which expression, as stated above, do not find place in other sections of Chapter XVII

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment proceedings beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then the AO is duty bound to demonstrate in his reasons recorded prior to issue of notice, the failure on the assessee's part to truly and fully disclose all material facts in the course of original assessment. 12. This legal principle has been reiterated

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income