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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SRI KRISHA TRADERS,SIVAGANGAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2223/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

147 of the Act by making an addition u/s. 40A(3) of the Act and the relevant observations of the AO in this regard are extracted as under: “6. It was mentioned by the ass that he was into the business of purchase and sale of old tyres. During the year under consideration, assessee had made total sales of Rs.2

CHENNIAPPAN RAMADURAI,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1337/Chny/2023 & Ita Nos.1340/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & Ay-2019-20 Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-638001. [Pan: Aelpr2706M] & Ita Nos.1343/Chny/2023 For Ay 2019-20 Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, No.56, Nms Compound, Erode, Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-638001. Central Circle-2, Coimbatore. [Pan: Afvpa4816L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

147 r.w.s 148 of the Act. The assessing officer considering undisclosed sales turnover of Rs.2,09,25,334/- proceeded to make additions to the returned income. As per para-4 of the impugned penalty order the assesse did not respond to the show cause notices issued by the AO. Consequently from the material available on record the AO concluded that

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

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

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

270A(9) is initiated separately for under reporting of income in consequence to misreporting of income.” Thus made an addition of Rs.16,22,950/- for the A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.48,26,392/- for the A.Y. 2021-22. 12. The Assessing Officer also noted that the certain expenditures have been made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained

M/S. CITADINES OMR APARTHOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORP WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.303/Chny/2026 & Sa No.29/Chny/2026 (Arising Out Of Ita No.303/Chny/2026) िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Citadines Omr Aparthotel Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward-1(3), No.94, Somerset Greenways, Chennai. Sathyadev Avenue, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcr 5653C

270A and initiation of proceedings under section 276C of section 276CC, if he fulfils the following conditions, namely:— (a) the tax and interest payable as per the order of assessment or reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded the initiation

SREE NAVALADIAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded the initiation

SREE NAVALADIYAN FINANCE,NAMAKKAL vs. DCIT, CENT CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded the initiation

SREENAVALADIAN FINANCE,SALEM vs. DCIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

147 of the Act. Finally, the AO in the reassessment proceedings assessed the returned income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act at Rs.40,55,440/-. This addition was accepted by assessee as it is because it was returned income. The AO vide this assessment order initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)© of the Act and recorded the initiation