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

1,23,76,930/-, and Rs.1,49,84,905/- made for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively (iii) Addition for Unexplained Expenditure of Unaccounted Cash Transactions 6.6.16 The appellant denies the addition for unexplained expenditure of unaccounted cash transactions based on entries in the "J-Pack" ledger maintained by M/s. MJPL

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

1,23,76,930/-, and Rs.1,49,84,905/- made for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22, respectively (iii) Addition for Unexplained Expenditure of Unaccounted Cash Transactions 6.6.16 The appellant denies the addition for unexplained expenditure of unaccounted cash transactions based on entries in the "J-Pack" ledger maintained by M/s. MJPL

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

1) of the Act expressly provides that once the AO has received "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing or books of account or documents seized" from the Subramaniam Kathiresan :: 23 :: AO of the searched person, he would proceed to assess or reassess the income of the person to whom such assets/books belong in accordance with Section

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further emphasized that, the statement(s) referred to by the AO was not recorded u/s 132(4) but u/s 131 of the Act and that a statement made u/s 131 of the Act cannot be equated with a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that, a statement

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further emphasized that, the statement(s) referred to by the AO was not recorded u/s 132(4) but u/s 131 of the Act and that a statement made u/s 131 of the Act cannot be equated with a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that, a statement

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further emphasized that, the statement(s) referred to by the AO was not recorded u/s 132(4) but u/s 131 of the Act and that a statement made u/s 131 of the Act cannot be equated with a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that, a statement

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further emphasized that, the statement(s) referred to by the AO was not recorded u/s 132(4) but u/s 131 of the Act and that a statement made u/s 131 of the Act cannot be equated with a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. He submitted that, a statement

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

1) of the Act. The Ld. AR further emphasized that,\nthe statement(s) referred to by the AO was not recorded u/s 132(4) but\nu/s 131 of the Act and that a statement made u/s 131 of the Act cannot\nbe equated with a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. He\nsubmitted that, a statement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

68 could not be used for the reasons\nstated above. It is for this reason that the Assessing Officer\ninvoked Section 56(1).\n9.10 Section 56(1) cannot be invoked since for it to apply a\nreceipt should be income whereas share premia is capital in\nnature as held by the Bombay High Court in Vodafone India\nServices

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

153C of the Act on 03.12.2018. 51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 & 10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination prior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider it prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through these statements, it is seen that, Shri

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

153C the same principle was reiterated by the honʼble Supreme Court in DCIT v U.K. Paints Ltd [2023] 150 taxmann.com 108 (SC). Even earlier the hon'ble Delhi High Court had held in PCIT v Vikas Telecom Ltd [2022] 135 taxmann.com 362 (Delhi) had held that post-search enquiries cannot be the basis of assessments under Section 153A/153C. Therefore

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

R.VISWANATHAN,,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

153C of the Act on\n03.12.2018.\n51. Though we find that the statement(s) dated 03.04.2017 &\n10.04.2017 had been retracted and also subjected to cross-examination\nprior to the recording of satisfaction note by the AO, we however consider\nit prudent to once examine its contents as well. Having gone through\nthese statements, it is seen that, Shri

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, 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, 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