SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

b)\nshows that Commissioner having jurisdiction under the said section is\nempowered to assess or reassess the total income of six years\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous\nyear in which the search was conducted and for the relevant assessment\nyear or years. Explanation 1 below section 153A of the Act defines the\nexpression relevant assessment

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

b)\nshows that Commissioner having jurisdiction under the said section is\nempowered to assess or reassess the total income of six years\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous\nyear in which the search was conducted and for the relevant assessment\nyear or years. Explanation 1 below section 153A of the Act defines the\nexpression relevant assessment year

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

1)(b) read with Section 153A of the Act. We thus\ncountenance the following findings rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) holding the\nAO's action of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act\nITA Nos.1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 &\nITA Nos.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025\n(AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17)\nM/s. Southern Agrifurane Industries

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

b)\nshows that Commissioner having jurisdiction under the said section is\nempowered to assess or reassess the total income of six years\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous\nyear in which the search was conducted and for the relevant assessment\nyear or years. Explanation 1 below section 153A of the Act defines the\nexpression relevant assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

b)\nshows that Commissioner having jurisdiction under the said section is\nempowered to assess or reassess the total income of six years\nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous\nyear in which the search was conducted and for the relevant assessment\nyear or years. Explanation 1 below section 153A of the Act defines the\nexpression relevant assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JSR INFRA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

b) abated assessments. He submitted that only in cases of unabated assessments, assessments. He submitted that only in cases of unabated assessments, assessments. He submitted that only in cases of unabated assessments, not only the Revenue is prevented from making any other addition apart not only the Revenue is prevented from making any other addition apart not only the Revenue

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

41 ITR 425 (SC), Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 680 (SC) and S. Sankappa v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC)]. 7. When an assessee claims that he is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, sub-section (1) which, 13 I.T.A. No.2849, 3247 to 3259/CHNY/2019 paraphrasing it in the language of S.Sankappa’s case