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

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

260, section 262, section 263,\nor section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of\nappeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the\nend of the month in which such order is received or passed by the 30[Principal Chief\nCommissioner or Chief Commissioner

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

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 PACHAMUTHU RAVI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

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

260/-\nas on 31.03.2014. Therefore, I have reason to believe that income has escaped\nassessment for AY 2014-15 within the meaning of explanation to section 147 of the\nIT Act, 1961. Hence this is a fit case to reopen u/s.147 of the IT Act, 1961. [emphasis\ngiven]\nThe AO thereafter passed the reassessment order dated 01.03.2021\nu/s.147 r.w.s.144

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

260/-. 8. Similarly, for the A.Y.2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act by admitting a total income of Rs.1,70,33,310/- on 25.02.2022. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings by issuing statutory notices. 9. In the assessment proceedings the assessee produced the details of purchases made from M/s.Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd. and corresponding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

260/-. 8. Similarly, for the A.Y.2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act by admitting a total income of Rs.1,70,33,310/- on 25.02.2022. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings by issuing statutory notices. 9. In the assessment proceedings the assessee produced the details of purchases made from M/s.Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd. and corresponding

SAKTHI POULTRY FARM,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

260/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee to ₹.87,93,960/-. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the ITAT vide its order in I.T.A. No. 409/Mds/2006 dated 3 I.T.A. Nos.1284 & 1285/M/17 21.04.2006 remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same de novo. Consequent to the above order

SAKTHI POULTRY FARM,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

260/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the income of the assessee to ₹.87,93,960/-. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the ITAT vide its order in I.T.A. No. 409/Mds/2006 dated 3 I.T.A. Nos.1284 & 1285/M/17 21.04.2006 remanded the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the same de novo. Consequent to the above order

M/S.VA TECH WABAG LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

147 on 11-03-2014 adding back excess deduction claimed u/s 80IA. The tax payable by the assessee was re-computed. Since the tax under normal provisions was more than tax on income u/s 115JB, tax under normal provisions was adopted. The Ld. CIT(A), vide order dated 29-02-2016, upheld the order

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment order u/s.147 of the Act were passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction. In this context, it is humbly prayed that following submissions may kindly be considered: :-8-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 4.1) The Department submits that provisions of section 153 determines the time limit for passing the draft order only. 4.2) The Department submits that in the below

SHRI K. DHANASEKHARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 3 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1869/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. K.Dhanasekharan Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 59/31, Kachaleeswarar Agraharam Street, Parrys, Central Circle-3(2) Chennai-600 001. Chennai. Pan: Adtpd 8931D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 29.12.2016 and determined total income at Rs.22,95,260/- by making additions towards disallowance of certain expenses u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act, for 4 non-deduction of TDS at Rs.3,33,166/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A), but could not succeed. The learned

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

147 of the Act. It is settled law that reasons as recorded for reopening the reassessment are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

147 of the Act. It is settled law that reasons as recorded for reopening the reassessment are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

147 of the Act. It is settled law that reasons as recorded for reopening the reassessment are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

147 of the Act. It is settled law that reasons as recorded for reopening the reassessment are to be examined on a 'stand-alone' basis. Neither anything can be added to the reasons so recorded nor anything be deleted from the reasons so recorded. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar