M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

u/s 147, which the appellant has, it is considered, to have erroneously and prematurely appealed against. 9. During the course of the appellate proceeding the AR has filed a note relating to what has been termed as his deniability of liability to be assessed / reassessed and its appealibility, the contents of which are reproduced hereunder: “1. The appeal against

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 proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

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 proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

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 proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT (supra) even went to the extent that at the initiation stage formation of reasonable belief

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 for both the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed 19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed 19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed that the AO’s action of adding only the profit element

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 for both the AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed 19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed 19. In the notice, the Ld. Pr.CIT is noted to have observed that the AO’s action of adding only the profit element

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

SMT.PREMA DEVI, L/R OF LATE.SHRI. DHARMICHAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 563 To 567/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 Smt. Prema Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of L/R. Of Late. Shri. Dharmichand Jain, Vs. Income Tax, No.37, Arumuga Achari Street, Central Circle 2(1), Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Avspp-5090-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

269 18,10,000 lending Interest income estimated on above 20,73,052 25,47,712 48,83,545 2,94,085 17,53,469 Undisclosed interest from 31,54,509 31,54,509 31,54,509 investment in 2008-09 Undisclosed interest from 19,65,220 19,65,220 investment in 2009-10 Undisclosed interest from

SMT.PREMA DEVI, L/R OF LATE.SHRI. DHARMICHAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for the A

269\n18,10,000\nInterest income estimated on above\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n20,73,052\n31,54,509\n25,47,712\n31,54,509\n48,83,545\n31,54,509\n2,94,085\n17,53,469\ninvestment in 2008-09\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n19,65,220\n19,65,220\ninvestment in 2009-10\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n16,45,330\ninvestment

SMT.PREMA DEVI, L/R OF LATE.SHRI. DHARMICHAND,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result all the five appeals of the assessee for the A

269\n18,10,000\nInterest income estimated on above\n20,73,052\n25,47,712\n48,83,545\n2,94,085\n17,53,469\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n31,54,509\n31,54,509\n31,54,509\ninvestment in 2008-09\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n19,65,220\n19,65,220\ninvestment in 2009-10\nUndisclosed\ninterest\nfrom\n16,45,330\ninvestment