BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

271). In the instant case, it was held\nthat in case of an abated assessment year, the return originally filed u/s\n139 of the Act stands replaced by the return of income u/s 153A of the\nAct. The AO is therefore required to conduct the assessment for such\nabated AY taking into account the return as filed u/s 153A

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

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

153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions

R.MAHALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3106/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. R. Mahalakshmi, No.24, Abm Avenue, Non-Corporate Circle – 17(1), Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Agqpm8406N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AO relied on the submissions and provisions of law observed that the assessee has filed the Return of income u/s. 153A of the Act admitting the total income of Rs. 1,62,96,560/- and due to search u/s. 132 of the Act, income has been unearth. The Ld. AR explained

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis that additions made in assessment order stands confirmed. The learned 1st appellate authority failed to see that the penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and therefore penalty is not leviable merely on the ground that the additions made in the assessment proceedings are sustained. 5. The leaned Commissioner ought to have

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2084/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S & P Foundation P. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Vs. Old No. 27, New No. 38, Madley Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Aaics0224K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Shri I Dinesh, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 02.12.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 In Pursuance To The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Levying Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s 271(1)(c). In this regard we rely on the Supreme Court order dt. 17.03.2010 in the case of CIT, Ahmedabad Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. We pray that, as our case does not attract levy of penalty, the proceedings may be dropped.” 15. During the course of penalty proceedings, by considering the explanation of the assessee, the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case