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

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

147, on or before the\nexpiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the assessment order in\nthe case of the firm is passed.\n(7) Where effect to any order, finding or direction referred to in sub-section (5) or sub-section\n(6) is to be given by the Assessing Officer, within the time

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

THE MADRAS SEVA SADAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1246/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2022-23 The Madras Seva Sadan, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.7, Shenstone Park, Income Tax (Exemption), Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai. Chennai-600 031. [Pan: Aaatt2871J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkatanarayanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

reassessment are pending in respect of an assessee, in computing the period for determining the additional interest payable to such assessee under this sub-section, the period beginning from the date on which such refund is withheld by the Assessing Officer in accordance with and subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of section 245 and ending 4[with

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI vs. RATHINAM PRABAKARAN, KARUR

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1154/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Dy. Commissioner Of Rathinam Prabakaran, Income Tax, Vs. 39, Narasimmapuram North, Central Circle-2(3), Karur - 639 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaipp 4501B]

reassessment proceeding explained that he has not advanced any loan to Shri Seetharaman during the previous year relevant to A.Y 2015-16 in his individual capacity and Shri Seetharaman has already offered the loan amount in his hand before the Hon’ble IT Settlement Commission. However, the A.O did not accept the assessee’s explanation and noted that Shri Seetharaman