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

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

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

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

234C of the Act. I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 7 of 21 [9] We will take up all these grounds of appeal as all these grounds are on the same issue and interconnected. In substance, in our considered view, the questions actually required to be adjudicated by us are as follows: - Whether the CIT(A) ought

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRLCE - 3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. VENTURE LIGHTING INDIA LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

234C of the Act in the said order dated 09.12.2011. In addition to the above, the assessee company has not added the foreign exchange loss reduced from the income for the assessment year 2007- 08 to the income for the assessment year 2008-09 and therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. From

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. CAVINKARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 of the Act on 23-03-2015. The grounds taken by the Revenue read as under: 1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. 2. The Id. CIT(A) erred in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) in resorting

SREE MEENAKSHI REALTORS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 234C of the I T. Act, 1961, means the tax chargeable on the total income declared in the return furnished by the appellant ix] s 139(1) of the Act, and not on the basis of a second return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, unless such return was the only return furnished

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

234C.” :-3-: ITA. No: 3096/Chny/2019 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 19.10.2006, admitting total income of Rs. 1,84,740/-. The case has been subsequently re-opened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

K. RAMALINGAM,,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-I(3),, SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

147 of the Act accepting the returned income. The AO charged interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act on the ground that the return of income was not filed within due dates as stipulated u/s.139 of the Act and the original return filed was a belated return and which is non-est as per law. Therefore, the AO charged

PAZHANIVEL THANGARASU,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, CUDDALORE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

147 is barred by limitation. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reassessment has been completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law. Addition of Rs.36,75,250/- as unexplained money u/s.69A 6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.36,75,250/- as unexplained