S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from assessment year

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the order was passed and dated as 20.03.2013. In the said order, the assessing officer added a sum of `4,81,546/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the ITA Nos.1791 to 1794/Mds./17 :- 7 -: Act on proportionate basis for four assessment years from 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

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

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

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

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

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

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

reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for reasons stated therein in the revisionary order. The appeal in ITA no. 1016/chny/2012 is filed by assessee for ay: 2001-02 which has arisen from appellate order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned CIT(A) , which appeal has arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential

SANTECH SOLUTONS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as 9

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1036/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

u/s 148 was issued’’. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had filed a letter dated 12.11.2010 which stated as under:- Date: 12/11/2010 To The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VI(I), Chennai - 34 Sub:!T Assessment - AY 08-09 Ref Notice u/s.143(2) dated 12.08.2009 Dear Sir, Further to our appearance before your goodself

ARUNACHALAM SRINIVASAN,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to invoke

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. A. SRINIVASAN, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

234B by AO u/s 154 of the Act. 6. Since the Revenue has assailed the impugned action of the Ld.CIT(A) on the legal issue of jurisdiction of the AO to issue notice u/s.153C of the Act for AY 2014-15, we are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issue because it questions the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to invoke

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.). 10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

POSHAK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s. 154 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is barred by limitation since four years have expired from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed as per section 154(7). 4. Jurisdiction:- 4.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

reassessment, the assessment order is not sustainable and relied upon the judgment cited as CIT vs. Kabul Chawla - 380 ITR 173 (Del.).\n\n10. Assessee brought on record copy of computation of income along with acknowledgement of return for income, copy of special audit report furnished u/s.142(2A) and reply filed by the assessee to the special audit report, available

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