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

reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the assessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment order. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response\nto the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the\nassessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment\norder. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

u/s 148 of the Act and by issuing notices under sections\n143(2) and 142(1) of the Act sought details on certain points. In response\nto the said notices, the assessee filed details including objects of the\nassessee Trust which were reproduced in page No.2 of the assessment\norder. On examination of the same, we find that the assessee

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ITO, CUDDALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATIONLIMITED,NEYVELI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LTD., NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEYVELI LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED, NEYVELI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 374/2004, 529/2006 & 222/2009 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2000-01. The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Neyveli Lignite Of Income Tax, Corporation Ltd, Company Circle Iv(4), Neyveli 607 801. Chennai

reassessment. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and he treated the I.T.A.No. 374/04, 529/06, 222/09, :- 14 -: 782/05 & 177/09. expenditure towards purchaser of conveyor belts and accessories amounting to "70 crores as revenue expenditure and instead treating it as capital expenditure allowed depreciation at the rate of 25% thereon. Further, the Assessing Officer has also disallowed the claim

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

147 is based on conjectures, pre-concluded mindset enquires and materials not directly related to the appellants role. 5. Assesses conduct: The Honourable CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had discharged his responsibility in proving the transactions and it is for the A.O. to disprove them before making an addition or disallowing the claims made

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

u/s 144C(5) dated 29.11.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ‘’1. Ground 1-General Hyundai Transys INC ('Hyundai INC' or 'the Appellant') submits that the assessment order ('the order') dated 12 December 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s 147

INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT DREDGING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

249 ITR 795 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- "The High Court has answered the question saying that when section 79 speaks of loss, it does not include unabsorbed depreciation or unabsorbed development rebate. We agree with the High Court." In view of the above decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Subhulaxmi Mills

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RIETER - LMW MACHINERY LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act as an initio void and unsustainable in law. For this, assessee has raised following two grounds read as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) ought to have quashed the assessment proceedings r.w. section 147 as ab initio void and unsustainable, in the facts and the circumstances of the case

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s 147 of the Act. 5.2 In the present case, the assessee has not shown bank account with Axis Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai. As per Explanation 2 of Section147, it is very clear that due to non- disclosure of this by the assessee, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee has not produced anything before the Commissioner

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s 147 of the Act. 5.2 In the present case, the assessee has not shown bank account with Axis Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai. As per Explanation 2 of Section147, it is very clear that due to non- disclosure of this by the assessee, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee has not produced anything before the Commissioner

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s 147 of the Act. 5.2 In the present case, the assessee has not shown bank account with Axis Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai. As per Explanation 2 of Section147, it is very clear that due to non- disclosure of this by the assessee, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee has not produced anything before the Commissioner

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s 147 of the Act. 5.2 In the present case, the assessee has not shown bank account with Axis Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai. As per Explanation 2 of Section147, it is very clear that due to non- disclosure of this by the assessee, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee has not produced anything before the Commissioner

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s 147 of the Act. 5.2 In the present case, the assessee has not shown bank account with Axis Bank, Adyar Branch, Chennai. As per Explanation 2 of Section147, it is very clear that due to non- disclosure of this by the assessee, the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. The assessee has not produced anything before the Commissioner