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

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

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

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

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

253 ITR 413,416-17 (P & H), where excise duty paid in advance was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was allowed as a deduction, reassessment notice on the ground that excise duty was shown as an asset in the balance sheet and was not routed through the profit and loss account. The reopening at this stage

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

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

5 :: beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case section (1) of this section

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

5 :: beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case section (1) of this section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253 Taxman 141, PCIT vs. Paramount Communication P. Ltd, (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) and Aradhana Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj) had upheld the validity of the reassessment based on the information received from Investigation Wing of the Department, if the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income escaped assessment based on the information

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

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

5 ::\nbeyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\nsection (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case\nmay be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the\nFinance Act, 2021. Therefore, for the AY 2013-14, since the notice under\nsection 148 of the Income

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is completed as under: Returned Income: Rs.44,86,960/- Assessed Income: Rs.44,86,960/- Income Tax computation sheet and demand notice enclosed’’. The ld. AR further referred the paper book consisting of pages (1-375). The ld. AR specifically pointed out page 232 and page 256 at point 3 which

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1337/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 4, Buharia Towers, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1354/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd., No. 4, Buharia Towers, 5Th Floor, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Moores Road, Chennai 600 006. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Department By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

253/-. 2.2 Having regard to the holding of the A0 that the provisions for loss on forex fluctuations claimed for of Rs.40,98,03,268/- in this case for A.Y 2009-10, is a contingent liability and that it is not an expenditure having been laid out or expended", the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in giving relief