DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

66,49,000/-. According to him, there was nothing on record to show that there was any diversion of trust funds to Smt. B. Ramani. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 15 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 11. In so far as advance of "22,34,000/- paid to Smt. B . Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur was concerned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

66,49,000/-. According to him, there was nothing on record to show that there was any diversion of trust funds to Smt. B. Ramani. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 15 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 11. In so far as advance of "22,34,000/- paid to Smt. B . Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur was concerned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

66,49,000/-. According to him, there was nothing on record to show that there was any diversion of trust funds to Smt. B. Ramani. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 15 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 11. In so far as advance of "22,34,000/- paid to Smt. B . Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur was concerned

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

66,49,000/-. According to him, there was nothing on record to show that there was any diversion of trust funds to Smt. B. Ramani. ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 15 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 11. In so far as advance of "22,34,000/- paid to Smt. B . Ramani for acquiring 6.23 acres of land at Kangaeyanallur was concerned

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

1) whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or\ncompleteness of the accounts of the assesse.\nSection 55A\n\"55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset\nfor the purposes of this Chapter, the Assessing Officer may refer the\nvaluation of capital asset to a Valuation Officer-\n(a)in a case

ACIT, CC- 6(2),, CHENNAI vs. S.N. DAMANI INFRA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3324/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Tax, V. No. 6, Ground Floor, Corporate Circle 6 (2), Rayala Tower, Chennai. 781-785, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaocs 0334C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R

66,72,573 Add: Depreciation As per CO Act : 93,60,735 Interest on TDS : 32,550 Interest on IT : 78,857 Donations : 11,175 Land expenses : 39,386 Loss on SPM Assets : 99,421 : 96,22,949 Less: Depreciation as per IT Act: 1,52,54,651 : 1,52,54,651 Business Income : 11,10,40,046 Assessable income

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

66,45,960/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed on 30.12.2017 after making addition towards unexplained interest paid/unexplained cash expenses. Against the same, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, Ld. AO, vide letter dated 15.03.2021, intimated to the appropriate authority that the assessee received

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

66 (SC) and Shahzada Nand &Sons v. CIT [1977] 103 ITR 358 (SC).\n7.5.10 The appellant stated that the share allotments were made in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 and duly reported to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, which has accepted the filings. The Appellant has made the allotments in accordance with the Companies Act 1956. The Appellant

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, 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, 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, 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,

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