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 both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

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 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 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

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

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

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

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

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

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

153A of the Act dated 29-09-2021, without giving effect to the application of income as claimed u/s 11 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty on the voluntary donations of INR 24,00,000/- duly recorded in the books of accounts and offered

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

153A of the Act dated 29-09-2021, without giving effect to the application of income as claimed u/s 11 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty on the voluntary donations of INR 24,00,000/- duly recorded in the books of accounts and offered

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)

B. Venkatram Reddy (BVR) was two directors in seven group companies. The assessee held 99% of shareholding in these companies whereas BVR was holding remaining 1% share. It was also noted that BVR was cousin of the assessee and he expired in May, 2013. During search proceedings, it was found that over and above the declared sale consideration for land

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)

B. Venkatram Reddy (BVR) was two directors in seven group companies. The assessee held 99% of shareholding in these companies whereas BVR was holding remaining 1% share. It was also noted that BVR was cousin of the assessee and he expired in May, 2013. During search proceedings, it was found that over and above the declared sale consideration for land

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)

B. Venkatram Reddy (BVR) was two directors in seven group companies. The assessee held 99% of shareholding in these companies whereas BVR was holding remaining 1% share. It was also noted that BVR was cousin of the assessee and he expired in May, 2013. During search proceedings, it was found that over and above the declared sale consideration for land

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