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)

1 of Section 142 when the assessee has not stated the income properly. Section 153C begins with non obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention

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

1 of Section\n142 when the assessee has not stated the income properly. Section\n153C begins with non obstante clause that notwithstanding anything\ncontained in Section 139, Section 147, Section 148, Section 149,\nSection 151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per\nprovisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament

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

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

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

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

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

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 such period

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

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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

68,15,120/- u/s.153A of the Act, which included an\nadditional income of Rs.3,25,88,900/-. The AO, while completing\nthe assessment, accepted the additional income so declared by\nthe assessee. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty\nu/s.271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,11,89,533/-, being\n100% of the tax allegedly sought

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.

1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 and as a result the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and such proceedings conducted by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. 3.2 The Ld. AO erred in facts

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

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 such period

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

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 such period

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

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 such period

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

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 such period

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

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 such period

ANNAI AMALI MEENBEDI THOLILAR MOONATA SANGAM,TIRUCHENDUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1, TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2956 & 2957/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2018-19

1,07,695/-. Accordingly, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to which, the assessee filed the return of income on 29.03.2021. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued, the A.O concluded the assessment by adding the cash deposit u/s. 68 of the Act and the interest amount