PRINCE GOLD & DIAMONDS INDIA P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 as well as section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 both dated 28.12.2018. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have

PRINCE GOLD & DIAMONDS INDIA P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.427 & 428/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Prince Gold & Diamonds India Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of P. Ltd., 3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan: Aaecp1891R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D. Palanivel, Advocate Department By : Ms. L. Jancy Elizabeth Rani, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.06.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”], The Assessee Has Also Disputed The Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Purchase On Merits In Both The Assessment Years Under Consideration.

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 as well as section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 both dated 28.12.2018. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM KATHIRESAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

b) of Section 153A(1) provided\nfor the identification of the six AYs' with reference to the \"previous year\nin which the search is conducted or requisition is made\". The block of six\nAYs' were to be identified commencing from the AY \"immediately\nITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nBondalapati Shivaji Rao\n:: 16 ::\npreceding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. A. SRINIVASAN, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

ARUNACHALAM SRINIVASAN,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (1) INVESTIGATION WING, CHENNAI vs. M/S G TECH STONE LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

147 therefore, was made in the context of the Assessing Officer being authorized and permitted to assess or re-assess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. Before us, such is not the position, and even if this judgment of the High Court had been brought

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 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153,\nwhere the Assessing Officer is satisfied that -\n(a) any money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article or thing\nseized or requisitioned, \"belongs to, or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains\nor pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to,\na person other

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 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153,\nwhere the Assessing Officer is satisfied that -\n(a) any money, bullion, Jewellery or other valuable article or thing\nseized or requisitioned, “belongs to, or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains\nor pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to,”\na person other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

153B and 153C are intended to\nbe a complete code for post- search assessments. Considering that the\nnon-obstante clause under Section 153A excludes the application of, inter\nalia, Section 139, it is clear that the revised return filed under Section\n153A takes the place of the original return under Section 139, for the\npurposes of all other provisions