Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CHENNAI BENCH)
George George K, Vice President, S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member
Kalpati Ramachandran Venkata ITO Ramani – Appellant
Versus
ITO Corporate Ward -6(2) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of reassessment and additions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. cit(a) confirms ao's additions (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. assessee challenges notice under new regime (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. portal date determines new reassessment regime (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. non-compliance with sc directions fatal (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. limitation bars fresh notice issuance (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 7. reassessment quashed for jurisdictional defect (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
आदेश/ORDER
PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”], arising out of the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”] u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the material available on record, are that the assessee is an indiv
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
