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) of the Act. This imputed\nwould be equally applicable for proscribing the issuance of a notice\nunder Section 148 of the Act, if the proceedings for reassessment could\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 Pvt. Ltd.\n:: 46

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

1) of the Act. This principle\nwould be equally applicable for proscribing the issuance of a notice\nunder Section 148 of the Act, if the proceedings for reassessment could\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 Pvt. Ltd.\n:: 46

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

1) of the Act, would be\nequally applicable for proscribing the issuance of a notice\nunder Section 148 of the Act, if the proceedings for reassessment could\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 Pvt. Ltd.\n:: 46

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) of the Act. This imputed\nwould be equally applicable for proscribing the issuance of a notice\nunder Section 148 of the Act, if the proceedings for reassessment could\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 Pvt. Ltd.\n:: 46

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

46,48,400/- | Rs.69,79,90,661/- |\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17 which was allowed

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

46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned

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

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

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction of a building over it was in a staggered manner over the next

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

46,000/-. The return was taken for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was sent on 10.04.2008. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the assessing officer has conducted proceedings under section 143(2) and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the order was passed

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

46,000/-. The return was taken for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was sent on 10.04.2008. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the assessing officer has conducted proceedings under section 143(2) and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the order was passed

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

46,000/-. The return was taken for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was sent on 10.04.2008. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the assessing officer has conducted proceedings under section 143(2) and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the order was passed

S.VIJAYALAKSHMI ,PUDUCHERRY vs. ITO WARD I(2) , PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

46,000/-. The return was taken for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was sent on 10.04.2008. Subsequently, a notice under section 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 05.08.2009. Thereafter, the assessing officer has conducted proceedings under section 143(2) and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and the order was passed

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year.] ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 14 -: 7.0 The Ld. AR informed that