ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS @ 1% of\nRs.17,01,000/- in accordance with section 194IA of IT Act. This\nassessee had even approached the Dy CIT, CPC vide his\ncommunication dated 21.02.2018.\n8.3 The Id.AR further submitted that the information in this seized\nletter is not something that came to the knowledge of the\nDepartment only due to the search and seizure

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

DR DEEPAK ARJUNDAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

search and seizure operations of a third party in which the Appellant was never a part of. 3. The AO presumed that the data received from the Investigation Wing is correct and complete - even though the person from whom the information was obtained did not authenticate it as correct and complete. 4. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

ITO, CHENNAI vs. PERFECT STONE LTD., CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

ITO, CHENNAI vs. PERFECT STONE LTD., CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

ITO, CHENNAI vs. PERFECT STONE LTD., CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

ITO, CHENNAI vs. PERFECT STONE LTD., CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

PERFECT STONE LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ACITCORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that

ITO, CHENNAI vs. PERFECT STONE LTD., CHENNAI

In the results, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615 & 1616 /Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

search and seizure :-3-: I.T.A. N0s. 1610, 1611, 1612, 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616, 1430, 1431, 1432, 1433 & 1434/Mds/2017 action. The seized materials and other records were forwarded to the A O. At the time of assessments, the assessee was unable to provide any convincing reply for the said receipts. The A O held that the assessee’s reply that