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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

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

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

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, 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, THIRUVANNAMALAI

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,

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

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman Koil Street, Madipakkam Rs. 48,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 14,400 Rs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

1) dated 04.11.2010 after a gap of nearly 12 years. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it had made a request for rectification u/s 154 long back on 27.12.2010. It is the case of the assessee that as there was no action, it filed another request for rectification on 02.07.2018 followed by another reminder dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated