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

4 |\n| 2021-22 | 5 |\n| 2020-21 | 6 |\n| 2019-20 | 7 |\n| 2018-19 | 8 |\n| 2017-18 | 9 |\n| 2016-17 | 10 |\n| 2015-16 | 11 (beyond terminal point of 10\n| years)\n14. Mr Chawla, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, fairly\nstates that there is no cavil with the said tabular statement and that

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

4 ::\n4. We first take up the Revenue's appeal for AY 2013-14 in ITA\nNo.1163/Chny/2025. It is seen that, before the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant\nhad inter alia urged that, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for AY\n2013-14 dated 30.03.2023 was beyond the time limit prescribed in\nproviso to Section

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

RAM KRISHAN KULWANT RAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in RKKR SBQ group of companies on 26.09.2012. During the course of search operation, according to the Ld. counsel, the documents relating to registration of assessee-company was said to be found. Accordingly, a notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer

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 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

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or 67[two years.] after

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4))-substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Such being the case, this court