VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment, the AO issued statutory notices and after enquiry denied exemption u/s.11 of the A after enquiry denied exemption u/s.11 of the Act and treated the ct and treated the assessee as AOP and re assessee as AOP and re-computed its income at Rs.91,80,690/ computed its income at Rs.91,80,690/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment, the AO issued statutory notices and after enquiry denied exemption u/s.11 of the A after enquiry denied exemption u/s.11 of the Act and treated the ct and treated the assessee as AOP and re assessee as AOP and re-computed its income at Rs.91,80,690/ computed its income at Rs.91,80,690/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal

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

263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 for ay: 2001-02 holding that re-assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment

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

263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 for ay: 2001-02 holding that re-assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment

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

263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 for ay: 2001-02 holding that re-assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment

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

263 of the Income-tax Act,1961 for ay: 2001-02 holding that re-assessment framed by learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment

MEGNANAPURAM PACCS,TIRUCHENDUR vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

147 has not been\nsatisfied. We therefore hold that reassessments orders for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-\n09 dated 30.12.2011 were invalid. Consequently order passed u/s 263 of the Act\ndated 21.03.2014 for A.Y.2007-08 and 2008-09 are also held to be invalid and\nquashed. Thus the appeals being ITA No.765 and 766/Kol/2014 are allowed.\"\n4). The Delhi bench of the Income

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

Reassessment Order dated 03.06.93 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act especially when the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.1989 was cancelled by C.I.T. Amritsar vide his order dated 28.02.92 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and no fresh order was passed pursuant thereto. Therefore, the question no. 1 is answered

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.

Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section 142(1) of the to 18 Oct Act dated 09-Jun-22 and 07-Oct-22 were 22 issued

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)

u/s 263 of the Act dated 22.02.2023 (para 4 supra); iii. The ld. CIT cannot sit in appeal on the reassessment order 23.03.2023 reversing findings of the AO and impose his own view of decision making process on same material; iv. There is legal presumption as per Section 114(f) of the Evidence Act that AO passed the reassessment order

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

147 of the Act is bad in law. (b)The matter for which proceedings u/s 263 of the Act was invoked is a subject matter of appeal Pending before the First Appellate Authority. As per clause (c) of explanation-1 to Section 263(1) of the Act, the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked when the subject matter

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-8(1), LTU-II,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 147 provides that where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe escapement of income [is the jurisdictional fact & law] he shall record his reasons for doing so and assess or reassess the income which has escaped assessment; and for exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263

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

VINAYAKA MEDICAL CARE CENTRE PVT LTD,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 90/Chny/ 2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reassess total income including income escaped from assessment. Therefore, when there is subsequent assessment order which is passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, then limitation provided u/s. 263(2) starts from date of subsequent assessment order, but not from the date of original order is passed. Therefore, if subsequent order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

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

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 or] Principal Commissioner\nCommissioner

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

147 on 09.03.2023. Hence, such an illegal action of the AO can be challenged in collateral proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as held by the Tribunal in a host of decisions wherein several decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been cited. The Ld AR referred to the following decision of this Tribunal is noted as under

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)

147 of the Act was initiated but he was not justified in doing so, when no addition was made in respect of item for which notice of reopening was issued. In the present case, admittedly, ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 25 -: notice for re-assessment is issued for the purpose of disallowing the expenditure claimed being the payment made to M/s. Sakshi