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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment\nyear falling within the period of six assessment years referred\nto in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under\nSection 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may\nbe, shall abate.\" Therefore, Section 153A is in the nature of a second\nchance given

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 264 of the Act on 31.03.2022, determining the total assessed income at ₹1,70,77,591/- as against the returned income of ₹61,371/-. And as noted supra, the ibid assessment order didn’t contain any finding or direction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of the additions made, which

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

6) or sub- section (7), where under-reported income is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty referred to in sub- section (1) shall be equal to two hundred per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income. (9)The cases of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section (8) shall

M/S. AVM PRODUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-20(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

reassessed immediately before such assessment. (3) The amount of under reported income shall be- (i) in a case where income has been assessed for the first time- a) if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub-section(1) of section 143. Therefore

CHENNIAPPAN RAMADURAI,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

reassessed. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), where the source of any receipt, deposit or investment in any assessment year is claimed to be an amount added to income or deducted while computing loss, as the case may be, in the assessment of such person in any year prior to the assessment year in which such receipt

M/S. CITADINES OMR APARTHOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORP WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.303/Chny/2026 & Sa No.29/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.303/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-1(3), No.94, Somerset Greenways, Chennai. Sathyadev Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcr 5653C

270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C of section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

6) or sub-section (7), where under-reported\nincome is in consequence of any misreporting thereof by any person, the penalty\nreferred to in sub-section (1) shall be equal to two hundred percent of the amount of\ntax payable on under-reported income.\"\n7. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may\nbe raised

SRI KRISHA TRADERS,SIVAGANGAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 40A(3) and also not covered under the rule 6DD, the expenditure to the extent of Rs. 3,08,45,000/- is disallowed and added to the returned Sri Krishna Traders :- 4 -: income. Penalty u/s 270A are initiated for under reporting of Income which was in consequence of mis-reporting of income.” 3. On further appeal

SRI AMMAN TEXTILES,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3198/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sri Amman Textiles, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5/1A, Panapalayam, Sirukalanchi Post, Ward 2(1), Uthukuli Via Perunthurai Tk, Erode. Erode 638 751. [Pan: Acufs3395L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In 2

reassessment vide order dated 26.10.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. The ld. AR Shri N.C. Ravi Krishnan, Advocate contended that the assessee requires to file Form 68 within 30 days from the date of the assessment, but, however, it was filed on 07.03.2024 with a delay of 97 days. The ld. AR relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A of the Act, as inserted by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending. A survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. During the course of survey, the AO found that

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

270A of the Act, as inserted by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. ITA Nos.1154 to 1157/Chny/2023 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of money lending. A survey u/s.133A of the Act was conducted on the business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. During the course of survey, the AO found that