ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassess the income other than the income in respect of which proceedings of Section 147 of the Act was initiated but he was not justified in doing so, when no addition

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

reassess the income other than the income in respect of which proceedings of Section 147 of the Act was initiated but he was not justified in doing so, when no addition

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

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

additional income. The Madras\nHigh Court in the case of S.M.J. 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

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

M/S ENRICE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

additional income in the hands of M/s.Enrica Enterprises Private Ltd. For the respective financial years as mentioned above." It can be seen from above that nowhere Managing Director stated that he is offering income on estimate basis. He has clarity with regard to unaccounted cash generated by inflation of expenditure each year. Though he said he can't product invoice

M/S ENRIA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

additional income in the hands of M/s.Enrica Enterprises Private Ltd. For the respective financial years as mentioned above." It can be seen from above that nowhere Managing Director stated that he is offering income on estimate basis. He has clarity with regard to unaccounted cash generated by inflation of expenditure each year. Though he said he can't product invoice

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai\nerred in not adjudicating and dismissing the ground on the legal\nvalidity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which lacks\njurisdiction, as the prescribe authority, as specified u/s 151 of the\nAct did not approve the same.\n:- 59 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai\nerred in not adjudicating and dismissing the ground on the legal\nvalidity of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, which lacks\njurisdiction, as the prescribe authority, as specified u/s 151 of the\nAct did not approve the same.\n- : 60 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

SG WIND FAARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. [Para 63] ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 31 :: Therefore, it is clear that merely because the assessee agreed for addition and accordingly assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition and when the assessee had paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings. [Para 63] ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 31 :: Therefore, it is clear that merely because the assessee agreed for addition and accordingly assessment order was passed on the basis of this addition and when the assessee had paid the tax and the interest thereon in the absence of any material on record