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

2) of the Act, therefore originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the return of income income income filed filed filed by by by assessee assessee assessee stood stood stood accepted accepted accepted by by by the the the Department. Department. Department. Subsequently

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

2) of the Act, therefore originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the originally, no scrutiny assessment was framed. Therefore, the return of income income income filed filed filed by by by assessee assessee assessee stood stood stood accepted accepted accepted by by by the the the Department. Department. Department. Subsequently

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

u/s 143(2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening

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

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

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)

2) of section 263 of the Act, without appreciating 9 fact that issue of tax credit claimed by the assessee was not subject matter of reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 22.06.2018. The learned AR further submitted that as per provisions of section 263 of the Act, the Principal

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

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

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)

2) (3) (4) i 2016-17 ii 2013-14 14491494 14491494 iii 2012-13 148847374 148847374 iv 2010-11 270130659 270130659 v 2009-10 164803652 164803652 vi Total 598273179 598273179 ii. Facts and figures and issues recorded in ‘Reasons for reopening u/s 147’ (para 3 supra) is similar as observed by the ld.CIT in his notice u/s 263

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

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

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

263 the CIT has to find the assessment order of the AO to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. Unless the condition precedent is satisfied, the AO or the CIT can’t exercise their reopening jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction respectively. The legislative history is that in respect to the reopening u/s. 147 of the Act, the Parliament

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

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