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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

147, section\n148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person52\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the\nAssessing Officer shall

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

3.—For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.” Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148 – “148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which

LATE ABDULLAH ABDULMAJEED, REP. BY L/H,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

147 shall apply as they apply\nfor the purposes of that section.\n:: 20 ::\n(2) & (3) ****\n8. The time limit for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act was\nrevised with effect from 01.04.2021 and the legislature in order to make\nthe amendment prospective introduced the first proviso to section 149(1).\nThe intent of the first

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

3. Reassessment proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the act are bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. The Id. AO erred in proceeding with the reassessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the act. 5. The Id AO has erred in denying the exemption under article 15(1) of the DTAA between India and Sweden

YUGENDIRAN VISHNUPRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3241 &3242/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-18) Yugendiran Vishnupriya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Door No.284/3, International Tax, Thiruveni Colony, Bellyarea, Ward 2(2) Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040 Chennai. [Pan: Apzpv 9903M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

3. Reassessment proceeding initiated u/s 147 of the act are bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 4. The Id. AO erred in proceeding with the reassessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the act. 5. The Id AO has erred in denying the exemption under article 15(1) of the DTAA between India and Sweden

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. S & P FOUNDATIONS PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, Cross-objection of the assessee No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1883/Mds/2014 & C.O.No.93/Mds/2014 (In Ita No.1883/Mds/2014) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-2006)

3,) it cannot be subjected to reopen assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act so as to issue 148 notice of the Act. In our opinion there is no merit in the argument of the assessee’s counsel Section 147 of the Act permits reassessment of income that has escaped assessment income in any I.T.A.No.1883/Mds/2014 & :- 8 -: C.O.No.93/Mds/2014

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

u/s 144C(5) dated 29.11.2023. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: ‘’1. Ground 1-General Hyundai Transys INC ('Hyundai INC' or 'the Appellant') submits that the assessment order ('the order') dated 12 December 2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) r.w.s 147

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

u/s 69C of the Act. At the outset, it is nothing but the unaccounted purchases of gold jewellery from MJPL The unaccounted purchases have been considered while determining the unaccounted business income of the appellant for the respective assessment years Considering the same transaction under the nomenclature as unexplained expenditure tantamount to taxing the same transaction(s) twice which

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

u/s 69C of the Act. At the outset, it is nothing but the unaccounted purchases of gold jewellery from MJPL The unaccounted purchases have been considered while determining the unaccounted business income of the appellant for the respective assessment years Considering the same transaction under the nomenclature as unexplained expenditure tantamount to taxing the same transaction(s) twice which

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

149(1)(b) of the Act”, as applicable for A.Y. 2014-15. 11. The ld. DR, with reference to furnishing of gist of reasons recorded, argued that rendering the reassessment illegal citing G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (supra) is factually incorrect. She argued that no specific request for supply of reasons sought by the assessee and placing on reliance

RABBIT BUILDERS,KARAIKAL vs. ACIT, THANJAVUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1377, 1378 & 1379/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-2008)

3,) it cannot be subjected to reopen assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act so as to issue 148 notice of the Act. In our opinion there is no merit in the argument of the assessee’s counsel section 147 of the Act permits reassessment of income that has escaped assessment income in any assessment year subject to provisions

RABBIT BUILDERS,KARAIKAL vs. ACIT, THANJAVUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1377, 1378 & 1379/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-2008)

3,) it cannot be subjected to reopen assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act so as to issue 148 notice of the Act. In our opinion there is no merit in the argument of the assessee’s counsel section 147 of the Act permits reassessment of income that has escaped assessment income in any assessment year subject to provisions

RABBIT BUILDERS,KARAIKAL vs. ACIT, THANJAVUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.1377, 1378 & 1379/Mds/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-2008)

3,) it cannot be subjected to reopen assessment u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act so as to issue 148 notice of the Act. In our opinion there is no merit in the argument of the assessee’s counsel section 147 of the Act permits reassessment of income that has escaped assessment income in any assessment year subject to provisions