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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

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 [1968] 68 ITR 760 (SC), means that

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

66] of the\nassessment order that, the assessee had accepted fixed deposits in cash\nto the tune of Rs.43,20,84,227/- during the FY 2020-21 in violation of\nprovisions of section 269SS and which consequently attracted provisions\nof penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The AO in his satisfaction expressed\nstated that, the assessee has received cash

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

66,000 1,50,00,000 5. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessments completed u/s.153A of the Act vide order dated 16.04.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that search was conducted in the premises

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

66,000 1,50,00,000 5. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessments completed u/s.153A of the Act vide order dated 16.04.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that search was conducted in the premises

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

66,000 1,50,00,000 5. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessments completed u/s.153A of the Act vide order dated 16.04.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that search was conducted in the premises

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

66,000 1,50,00,000 5. Aggrieved by the additions made in the assessments completed u/s.153A of the Act vide order dated 16.04.2021 for assessment years 2014-15 to 2018-19, assessee preferred appeals before First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) dismissed appeals of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that search was conducted in the premises

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI vs. M SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.69/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.70/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri M. Sukumar Reddy बनाम 3Rd, 6A, Rajparis, Aishwarya, Central Circle-3(4) Chennai. Raj Apartment, Ranjeeth Road, / Vs. Kotturpuram, Chennai-600 085. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adzpm-1863-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.24/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.69/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. Cross Objection No.25/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.70/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & 6. Cross Objection No.26/Chny/2019 (In Ita No.71/Chny/2019) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

1% share. It was also noted that BVR was cousin of the assessee and he expired in May, 2013. During search proceedings, it was found that over and above the declared sale consideration for land, some on- money was paid by Om Shakthy Agencies (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (OSAPL) to the director for sale of land of the group companies. However

PLANTIUM HOLDING P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3436/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Platinum Holdings Private Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.2/1, Abu Garden, Omr Road, Central Circle-3(4) Vs. Navalur, Chennai-600 103. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcp-8781-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao (Ca)-Ld. Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/ Respondent By : Smt. Komali Krishna (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-05-2024

section 153A in respect of unabated assessments. 4. The material relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) to confirm the additions was not found during the course of the search of the Appellant. The said material was already available with the Assessing Officer which had been collected in the course of the search of another entity. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, erred