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

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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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

254/- was found to be payable to the assessee. The said intimation issued by AO u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act is placed at paper book at Page No.18. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the return of income was manually processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act as it was for a period

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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 was held to be valid. In the case of Convergys Customer Management v. Asst. DIT, (2013) 357 ITR 177 (Del), where there being prima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment

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

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment was made on account of change of opinion. 4. The Brief facts of the case are the assessee is a Banking Company and Return of Income was filed on 25.10.2007 electronically and the Return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 18.02.2008. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and Assessment was completed u/s

MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT LTU 1 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.936 To 941/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1012/Chny/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2009-2010 To 2015-2016) वष" M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Vs The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. & आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.942 To 944/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील & आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita Nos.1089/Chny/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years:2011-2012 To 2014-2015) वष" The Dcit (Ltu), Chennai-600001 Vs M/S Mahindra Holidays & Resorts Ltd Mahindra Towers, 2Nd Floor, 17/18, Pattulos Road, Chennai-600002 Pan No. :Aaacm 6469 L (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" ..

1 which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 320 ITR 561. It is also noticed that the learned CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts, reported in 259 ITR 19 (S.C) has held that as the Assessing Officer has not passed a speaking order in regard