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

capital gains." In other words, he was proceeding with the scope of the assessment and was not really addressing himself as to the scope of exercising jurisdiction under Chapter XIV-B and section 158BA. The Tribunal, on analysis of the materials placed before it, has recorded the following finding : "In the case in hand admittedly undisclosed income

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

gains of Rs.16,24,68,072/- disallowing the exempt u/s.10(38) as undisclosed income from other sources. 14.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding in rejection of the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) on the long term capital

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

N.SANTHANAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.328/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. N.Santhanam Vs The Assistant Commissioner Old No.14, New No.12, Income Tax, Seethammal Colony Extension, Central Circle-1(2) 1St Cross Street, Teynampet, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 018. Pan: Axups 6533R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

undisclosed income. However, she did not specify how she derived that income and what head it fell in (rent, capital gain

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL 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•\nThe 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•\nThe notice should

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

HOTEL SARAVANA BHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.474/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Acit, M/S. Hotel Saravana Bhavan, C/O. Shri.T.N. Seetharaman, Central Circle 1(3), Advocate, Chennai – 34. #384, (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aabfh 3049M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

undisclosed income admitted at Rs.12.5 crores on 13.03.2014 i.e., within specified date. When the assessee filed the return on 05.01.2015, the tax payable by the assessee is Nil. Therefore, it was pleaded that the levy of penalty U/s.271AAB be made @ 10% as made for the assessment year 2013-14, towards which the assessee also made an endorsement in the record

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

income for the respective that can be attributed as additional business income for the respective that can be attributed as additional business income for the respective assessment years. Naturally any estimation should have some basis. assessment years. Naturally any estimation should have some basis. assessment years. Naturally any estimation should have some basis. The Income Tax Act, The Income

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty were not justified. The Assessing Officer considering the explanation held that long term capital gains

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty were not justified. The Assessing Officer considering the explanation held that long term capital gains

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

undisclosed income and therefore levy of penalty were not justified. The Assessing Officer considering the explanation held that long term capital gains

S.ASHOKAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain’. 25. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.6 to 8 of assessee appeal is addition towards cash found during the course of search under the head ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs.40,70,000/-. During the course of search a sum of Rs.40,70,000/- was found in the residential premises

S.ASHOKAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain’. 25. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.6 to 8 of assessee appeal is addition towards cash found during the course of search under the head ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs.40,70,000/-. During the course of search a sum of Rs.40,70,000/- was found in the residential premises

S.ASHOKAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain’. 25. The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.6 to 8 of assessee appeal is addition towards cash found during the course of search under the head ‘income from other sources’ amounting to Rs.40,70,000/-. During the course of search a sum of Rs.40,70,000/- was found in the residential premises

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

undisclosed source of income and added to the total income of the assessee. 57 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 99. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the Assessing Officer wrongly quoted an amount of ₹.1,75,000/- instead of ₹.25,000/-. The assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the credit in respect

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

undisclosed source of income and added to the total income of the assessee. 57 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 99. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the Assessing Officer wrongly quoted an amount of ₹.1,75,000/- instead of ₹.25,000/-. The assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the credit in respect

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

undisclosed source of income and added to the total income of the assessee. 57 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 99. Before the ld. CIT(A), it was contended that the Assessing Officer wrongly quoted an amount of ₹.1,75,000/- instead of ₹.25,000/-. The assessee requested the ld. CIT(A) to restrict the credit in respect