SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate the assessee from the culpability. Having regard to the fact that the asses see had not disclosed any reason for the omission in the original return and that the revised return was filed only after the search, this court held that penalty was leviable" The facts herein are no different from the abovesaid

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate the assessee from the culpability. Having regard to the fact that the asses see had not disclosed any reason for the omission in the original return and that the revised return was filed only after the search, this court held that penalty was leviable" The facts herein are no different from the abovesaid

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) , CHENNAI vs. C.V.SUNISH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1518/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri C.V. Sunish, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Vs. C/O Aditya Trading Solutions (P) Ltd., 6Th & 7Th Floor, Npl Towers, L.B. Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Apfps3125J] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai Dated 15.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of ₹.22,38,721/- Levied Inadvertently Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 6 days, for which, the Revenue has filed petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. 2 I.T.A. No. 1518/Chny/17 Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of 6 days

SELVA GOLD COVERING P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., C/O Shri S. Sridhar, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sh. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate , V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Corporate Circle – 2, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Coimbatore. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aadcs 0688 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase in its accounts and suppressed sales, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

C. Yamuna, CIT &\nMr. Bipin, CIT\n: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\n: 08.10.2025\n: 21.11.2025\n::2 ::\nITA Nos.1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025\n(AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23)\nM/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER BENCH:\nThese appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue are\nagainst the order of the Learned Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

C. Yamuna, CIT &\nMr. Bipin, CIT\n: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\n: 08.10.2025\n: 21.11.2025\n::2 ::\nITA Nos.1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025\n(AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23)\nM/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER BENCH:\nThese appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue are\nagainst the order of the Learned Commissioner

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

C. Yamuna, CIT &\nMr. Bipin, CIT\nAssessee by\n: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\nसुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing\n: 08.10.2025\nघोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement\n: 21.11.2025\n::2 ::\nITA Nos.1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025\n(AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23)\nM/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER BENCH:\nThese appeals preferred by the assessee

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

C. Yamuna, CIT &\nMr. Bipin, CIT\n: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\n: 08.10.2025\n: 21.11.2025\n::2 ::\nITA Nos.1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025\n(AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23)\nM/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER BENCH:\nThese appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue are\nagainst the order of the Learned Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

C. Yamuna, CIT &\nMr. Bipin, CIT\n: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\n: 08.10.2025\n: 21.11.2025\n\n::2 ::\nITA Nos.1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025\n(AYs 2020-21 to 2022-23)\nM/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd.\n\nआदेश / ORDER\n\nPER BENCH:\n\nThese appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue are\nagainst the order

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-3(3), CHENNAI vs. BARAI HITENDRA SUNITA, 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.3457/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ms. Barai Hitendra Sunita, Non Corporate Ward 3(3), No. 35, Poes Garden, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 086. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bkops4159K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11.01.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 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) 4, Chennai, Dated 23.10.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

bogus claim and therefore, the penalty has to be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that once the details of company in which the assessee has purchased

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

purchaser and developer of the land of 196.97 Acres. However, the assessee accepted the receipts of interest for Rs35 Crores as per the agreement made dated 29.12.2006 which was calculated on pro rata basis. But in connection with this interest income, the assessee claimed it as a capital receipt and hence it should not be treated as revenue receipt