DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt in Filatex India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [WP(C) No. 12148 of 2023]\nwhich we find is squarely applicable in the given facts of the assessee\nbefore us. In this case, the search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on 01.09.2021 and therefore the assessment

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

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

gainful to refer to\nsection 271AAB(1) of the Act, which reads as under:\nPenalty where search has been initiated.\n271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may,\nnotwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct\nthat, in a case where search has been initiated under section-132 on or after\nthe 1st day of July

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

capitation fees,\nfailed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced\npenalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a).\n• The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate.\nInvalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative\nintent to deter tax evasion in search cases.\ne. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\n• The notice should

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee on 16.12.2021 in the course of which, several incriminating material concerning the unaccounted income generated from real estate business and unaccounted payments made for purchase of lands was found. Before the AO, the assessee vide letter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 3 :: dated

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee on 16.12.2021 in the course of which, several incriminating material concerning the unaccounted income generated from real estate business and unaccounted payments made for purchase of lands was found. Before the AO, the assessee vide letter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025 (AYs 2021-22 & 2022-23) Jayapriya Company :: 3 :: dated

LATE ABDULLAH ABDULMAJEED, REP. BY L/H,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

Capital Gains' as provided under section 48 and this is the only\nmanner of understanding the words, 'income chargeable to tax under\nsection 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act.\n19. The contention of the Revenue that under section 149 what is required\nto be taken note of, is the 'income that has escaped assessment' being\nthe entirety of sale consideration

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

capital gains. Therefore, this claim could not be held to be non-genuine. 3.6 On the addition of Rs.100 Lacs in AY 2007-08, the assessee submitted that he had earlier paid Rs.100 Lacs to one Sh. R. Ramdas, as advance for procuring land at Kundrattur village on 08.08.2006. This was in addition to opening advance of Rs.343 Lacs. Since