ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

ST. JOHN FREIGHT SYSTEMS LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

120. This return claimed an deduction of Rs.1,31,84,425 u/s.80IA(4). But, since the original return was not filed in time, the claim of deduction claimed u/s.80IA(4) was denied because of the provisions of section 80AC. As per the provisions of Section 80AC, no deduction u/s.80IA shall be levied unless the assessee furnishes the return of income

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded

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

reassessment for AY 2010-11 and the assessment for AY 2012- 13 to AY 2014-15 were concluded after the search and the details of receipt of share capital from MJC and Enerk was accepted without any adjustment. The Transfer Pricing order u/s.92CA(3) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was completed after the conclusion of the search

SAME DEUTZ FAHR ITALIA SPA,ITALY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

reassessment proceedings is invalid. 2.5 The Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that merechange of opinion cannot per se be the reason for re-opening under section 147 since there was no fresh material on record which merits such re opening. 2.6 The Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment based on certain information which was available in a different

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

reassessment proceedings initiated by the first respondent, who lacks jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, and sent a notice dated 14.12.2018 under section 143(2) r/w section 129 of the Act to the appellant, calling upon her to appear either in person or through an authorised representative and produce the documents in support of the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

reassessment proceedings were initiated under\nSection 148 of the Act and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was\npassed on 24.03.2016 without any disallowance/addition.\n4.3 Search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the\nAct were carried out in the premises of the assessee in\nTamilnadu and Chhattisgarh on 23.11.2015, on 09.12.2015 and\nconcluded on 13.01.2016. During the search, certain documents\nwere

M/S. TATVA RENEWABLE POWER PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references

M/S. TATVA CLEAN ENERGIES PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references

M/S. OJAS PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references

M/S. PIPPALA LEAF DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references

M/S. MAHINDRA ORCHARDS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer had made contradictory references

M/S. CHATRACHAYA PROPERTY HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1795/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Chatrachaya Property Holdings Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Studio N - Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aafcc4753J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Vinita Shah, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Besides Challenging The Issue On Merits In Restricting The Addition By The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Has Challenged In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

reassess the total income of such person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. 7 I.T.A. No.1795/Chny/25 7. In the present case, the Tribunal came to a factual finding that no search authorization was produced. This was necessary because the Assessing Officer