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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

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

147 of the Act. As a consequence, the timelines for\nsearch related cases qua AYs prior to AY 2021-22, would be governed by\nfirst proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the Act and therefore the notice for\nreopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act can be issued, only if such\nAY could have otherwise been validly reopened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM KATHIRESAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassess the total income of six (6) years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search was conducted. And that from 01.04.2017, the power to assess/reassess the income was expanded from six (6) to ten (10) years and termed it as the relevant assessment year or years. [refer to Explanation-1 below Section 153A

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

260A of the Act in the case of CIT v.\nGoldstone Cements Ltd wherein it has been held that \"It was\nemphasized that an expenditure, irrespective of its character, does not\nfall within the definition of 'asset' defined in Explanation 2 to S.153A and\ntherefore the Jurisdiction assumed by the AO is unsustainable\" .\n6.6.17 A jurisdictional fact

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

260A of the Act in the case of CIT V.\nGoldstone Cements Ltd wherein it has been held that \"It was\nemphasized that an expenditure, irrespective of its character, does not\nfall within the definition of 'asset' defined in Explanation 2 to S.153A and\ntherefore the Jurisdiction assumed by the AO is unsustainable\" .\n6.6.17 A jurisdictional fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY MOOLIMANGALAM VAISHNAVA PRIYA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021],\nthe Assessing Officer shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE,TRICHY vs. MARAGATHAMANI SHANMUGAM, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021],\nthe Assessing Officer shall

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER PALANIAPPA GOUNDER MARIAPPAN, KARUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a\nperson where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account,\nother documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after\nthe 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021],\nthe Assessing Officer shall

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

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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