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

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

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

houses and the total consideration received during F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.3,46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

properties and derived agricultural income. That income was utilised to acquire jewellery that was belonging to him and his family. With regard to cash stated to be recovered from the students for granting admissions, we do not find that any inquiries were made. There is absolutely nothing to indicate as to in which educational courses, the education is imparted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

House Property,\nBusiness) and not a deeming provision to assess to tax receipts\nthat are not income. Hence, Section 56(1) cannot be resorted\nto assess a receipt that does not constitute income. This\nproposition has been upheld by the hon'ble Supreme Court of\nIndia in CIT v D P Sandu Bros [2005] 142 Taxman 713 (SC),\nwhere

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

properties received by an assessee for inadequate consideration, but it did not apply to companies and applies only to individuals and HUF. It was by Finance Act 2017 that with effect from Assessment Year 2018-19 that this provision was substituted by Section 56(2)(x) that extended these deeming provisions to companies also. Thus, there is no case

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

R.VISWANATHAN,,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

house on 22-04-2016, details of income and\nexpenditures are written in S.No.1 to 6. Explain the details for it.\nAns: I am in finance business at Karur, for the past 10 years. The\nentries in the books seized relate to my finance business in the past 3\nyears. I have been doing finance business, as written

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns