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

69,613/- . Thus, the second ground for invocation of Section 263 of the 1961 Act by learned CIT was held by AO to be in favour of assessee while framing consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. The claim of the assessee that he has not received Rs. 3 Crs. and hence same

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

69,613/- . Thus, the second ground for invocation of Section 263 of the 1961 Act by learned CIT was held by AO to be in favour of assessee while framing consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. The claim of the assessee that he has not received Rs. 3 Crs. and hence same

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

69,613/- . Thus, the second ground for invocation of Section 263 of the 1961 Act by learned CIT was held by AO to be in favour of assessee while framing consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. The claim of the assessee that he has not received Rs. 3 Crs. and hence same

ACIT, CUDDALORE CIRCLE,, CUDDALORE vs. M/S. THE CUDDALORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

reassessment order, the AO stated that details were called for and assessment was completed after going through the details furnished. This shows that details already filed during 1 round of 147 proceedings were examined and order was passed on 06.03.2015. Thereafter on 31.03.2015 i.e barely after lapse of 24 days, the AO issued notice u/s 148 for re-assessment

M/S RATNA CAFE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 143(3) was made only after considering the above issue. Further, the assessee vide letter dated 18.02.2015 again reiterated the same. The Revenue after taking these explanations has not I.T.A. No.1509/Chny/2018 5 taken any action on the rectification notice issued by the Department. Subsequently, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 11.03.2016 was issued, which was received by the assessee

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

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

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 139(5) of the Act? 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is a property developer carrying out hotel projects and commercial projects but did not carry out any business activity during the year under consideration, for the reason that these projects got struck for various reasons and therefore, remained as capital work in progress. The assessee has obtained

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

reassessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.11.2017, which is beyond four years, without mentioning any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides relying upon various case

ACIT, CENT CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 511/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. Nlay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

69,118/- with Tamilnadu Electricity Board, but no interest income has been admitted, even though the Electricity board pay 9% interest p.a. on said deposits. The Assessing Officer, further noticed that the assessee has shown a sum of Rs. 4,38,199/- as deposits made for which no interest has been offered in the return. Therefore, called upon the assessee

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1222/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1223/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1224/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1225/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Palladam Krishnasamy Ganeshwar Dcit बनाम/ 21,Shri Ganesa Textiles, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Vs. Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adfpg-6476-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

69 of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 14. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the misreading of the sworn statements of the other parties would negate the presumption of unaccounted loan transactions and ought to have appreciated that the process of translating their presumption

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

69 of the Act was\nwrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in\nlaw.\n14. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate the misreading of the\nsworn statements of the other parties would negate the presumption of unaccounted loan\ntransactions and ought to have appreciated that the process of translating their\npresumption for substantiating

PALLADAM KRISHNASAMY GANESHWAR,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

147, Section 148, Section 149,\nSection 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is\ninitiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any\nassets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003,\nthe Assessing Officer shall—\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring

DCIT, KARAIKUDI vs. M.R.M.PLANTATIONS P. LTD., KARAIKUDI

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69,47,340/- has escaped assessment. Accordingly assessment was computed interalia taxing the Malaysian plantation. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the 4. assessment. Further, he observed that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PVRM Kulandayan Chettiar