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

42 Taxmann.com 493] and the aspect as to how onus/burden of proof shifts from the assessee to the Revenue when penalty proceedings are initiated, is held in the following terms : “11. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013, dated 30.10.2013 (Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income

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

42 Taxmann.com 493] and the aspect as to how onus/burden of proof shifts from the assessee to the Revenue when penalty proceedings are initiated, is held in the following terms : “11. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9772 of 2013, dated 30.10.2013 (Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Income

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

c) of the 36 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 Act, insofar as, loans given to two individuals. Apart from this, he has denied the benefit of exemption for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017- 18 on one more count that the assessee has not satisfied provisions of section 13(9) of the Act by filing the required Form No.10 within

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

c) of the 36 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 Act, insofar as, loans given to two individuals. Apart from this, he has denied the benefit of exemption for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017- 18 on one more count that the assessee has not satisfied provisions of section 13(9) of the Act by filing the required Form No.10 within

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

c) of the 36 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 Act, insofar as, loans given to two individuals. Apart from this, he has denied the benefit of exemption for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017- 18 on one more count that the assessee has not satisfied provisions of section 13(9) of the Act by filing the required Form No.10 within

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

c) of the 36 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 Act, insofar as, loans given to two individuals. Apart from this, he has denied the benefit of exemption for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017- 18 on one more count that the assessee has not satisfied provisions of section 13(9) of the Act by filing the required Form No.10 within

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

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. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which falls beyond six assessment

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

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. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years

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

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. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years

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

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. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years

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

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

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. In order to make an assessment for\n assessment year which falls beyond six assessment years

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

42 out of 153 persons\nwhich pertained to amount(s) aggregating to Rs.14,26,12,672/-. The\nassessee demonstrated before the AO that these persons had never made\nany such cash deposits with him nor did they have the financial capability\nof giving such huge sums. After examining the genuineness of the\nconfirmations filed by the relevant parties and verifying