R.EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

M. VELUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

K. KATHIRVEL,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

K. BASKAR,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

P. NALLUSAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

S. ARAVIND,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

K. PARAMASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

M. NATESAN,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

K. SADASIVAM,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

P. KARUNANITHI,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

S. EASWARAMOORTHY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

RAMASAMY PALANISAMY,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all the appeals t, all the appeals stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

3) or under section 147 of the Act, then in such case 147 of the Act, then in such case, no notice under section 147 of the Act no notice under section 147 of the Act could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have been issued beyond four years from expiry of relevant could have

EMPEE HOLDINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act and reopening of the concluded assessment was sought to be done by Revenue by invocation of provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act within four years from end of the relevant assessment year and hence proviso to Section 147 of the 1961 Act is not applicable to instance case

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

3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words adopt different standards while interpreting the words "reason to believe” "reason

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

3) and the intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to intimation issued under section 143(1) and hence it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words adopt different standards while interpreting the words "reason to believe” "reason

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(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act , vide reassessment order dated 31.12.2008 is erroneous so far as prejudicial