DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s. 133A of Income tax Act, 1961 on 21.11.2019 clearly shows that in assets where there were no installation certificates were pushed to be capitalized early in A Y 2017-18 itself." (Pg No. 25 of the final order) Relevant extracts of the DRP order: "Having perused the submissions of the assessee and the conclusions arrived

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

u/s. 133A of Income tax Act, 1961 on 21.11.2019 clearly shows that in assets where there were no installation certificates were pushed to be capitalized early in A Y 2017-18 itself." (Pg No. 25 of the final order) Relevant extracts of the DRP order: "Having perused the submissions of the assessee and the conclusions arrived

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹.8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued since there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

K M M SITHI FOUSIA BEEVI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

house property, business income, capital gains and income from other sources and filed return of income on 28.09.2009 with total income of "9,04,460/- and the return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, under provisions of Sec. 131(1A) of the Act statement was recorded from assessee’s husband. The assessee alongwith her husband purchased land with

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

133A on 22.07.2010 and accordingly, an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 22.12.2011 determining the income of Rs.3228.71 Lacs. 2.2 The survey findings revealed that the assessee entered into a transaction with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) and received compensation of Rs.35 Crores in AY 2008-09 which has been treated by the assessee

ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION,TRICHY vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(2), TRICHY

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

133A on 22.07.2010 and accordingly, an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 22.12.2011 determining the income of Rs.3228.71 Lacs. 2.2 The survey findings revealed that the assessee entered into a transaction with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) and received compensation of Rs.35 Crores in AY 2008-09 which has been treated by the assessee

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am.

133A on 22.07.2010 and accordingly, an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 22.12.2011 determining the income of Rs.3228.71 Lacs. 2.2 The survey findings revealed that the assessee entered into a transaction with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) and received compensation of Rs.35 Crores in AY 2008-09 which has been treated by the assessee

G.KARTHIK,ERODE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

survey u/s 133A conducted in the business premises of the assessee. The assessee has agreed that the loan credits are not real and genuine. Even during the random verification of addresses given by the loan creditors by the Inspector of the department none of them were existed in the given addresses and accordingly the Assessing Officer has finalized the assessment

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

SMT. M. MAGESWARI,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2200 & 2201/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mrs. Mageswari, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai-600 050. Chennai. Pan: Anfpm 5901L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted on 02.09.2013 in the office premises of M/s .Kumaran Real Estate & Builders, Vellore assessed as APO. Based on the survey, assessment of the AOP and members have been reopened and concluded u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and assessed income derived from purchase and sale of properties under the head income from business

SMT. M. MAGESWARI,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for both the

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2200 & 2201/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Mrs. Mageswari, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1, M.T.H.Road, Padi, Non-Corporate Ward-10(3), Chennai-600 050. Chennai. Pan: Anfpm 5901L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted on 02.09.2013 in the office premises of M/s .Kumaran Real Estate & Builders, Vellore assessed as APO. Based on the survey, assessment of the AOP and members have been reopened and concluded u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act and assessed income derived from purchase and sale of properties under the head income from business

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also recognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs to the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other words, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being searched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs ITA No.1321/Chny/2025 & Others

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also\nrecognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs\nto the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other\nwords, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being\nsearched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs\nto that person

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also\nrecognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs\nto the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other\nwords, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being\nsearched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs\nto that person

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also\nrecognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs\nto the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other\nwords, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being\nsearched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs\n:: 24 ::\nITA

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also\nrecognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs\nto the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other\nwords, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being\nsearched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs

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

survey u/s. 133A of the Act is also\nrecognized by Section 292C(1)(i) of the Act which provides that it belongs\nto the person from whom the said assets/documents was found. In other\nwords, whenever an asset/document is found from a person who is being\nsearched, the presumption of fact is that the said asset/document belongs\n:: 24 :: \nITA

ARUMUGA NADAR SOUNDARARAJAN REP BY L/H SUDARSAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 19(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.446/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Arumuga Nadar Soundararajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rep By L/H. Sri Sudharsan, Non Corporate Ward 19(4) No.16, Lakeview Road Extn, Chennai West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan: Aalps 5134J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Anand Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

House Property, etc., and the same has been accepted in the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 19.11.2017. E For that the Ld. AO also failed to note that the details called for in the Notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in the course of assessment proceedings, were duly submitted with the evidences