ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC). 5.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 28 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC). 5.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 28 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

272, 277 (Karnataka) applying Sowdagar Ahmed Khan vs ITO (1968) 70 ITR 79 (SC). 5.5 So far as, the meaning of expression, “reason to believe” is concerned, it refers to belief which prompts the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 28 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells Assessing Officer to apply section 147 to a particular case. It depend upon

K.THANIKACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

272 ITR 341). However the case of Sanmar holdings Ltd was remitted back to the file of the Assessing officer to verify the facts regarding the ownership of building and the commercial exploitation of the property. In the appellants case there is no dispute that the assessee is the owner of the building and receiving the rents by making extra

K.THANIKACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

272 ITR 341). However the case of Sanmar holdings Ltd was remitted back to the file of the Assessing officer to verify the facts regarding the ownership of building and the commercial exploitation of the property. In the appellants case there is no dispute that the assessee is the owner of the building and receiving the rents by making extra

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. S. ELAMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos

68 of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds forming part of Form 36. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find similar issue on same identical facts arising out of same search in the case of Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami came up before this Tribunal, which is not disputed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. ELEMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.220 & 221/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 [In Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri S. Elambharathi, Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364, Room No. B6, Investigation Building, Kurupam Court, Lloyds Road, No. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 34. [Pan: Aacpe3945N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Appeals & The Cross Objections Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28.01.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

68 of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds forming part of Form 36. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find similar issue on same identical facts arising out of same search in the case of Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami came up before this Tribunal, 4 I.T.A. Nos.220 & 221/Chny/22

MAHALINGAM SUNDARA MOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 602, Srithi Block, Chitra Avenue, Corporate Ward 4(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Afypm5382G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

272(1)(d) of the Act dated 30.07.2019 show-causing the assessee as to why penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act should not be levied for non-furnishing of details as called for vide above notices. Since there was no response from the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of ₹.10,000/- under section

VARAM CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI HON'BLE S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. During appellate proceedings, the assessee has remained non-responsive despite multiple opportunities Varam Capital Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: provided u/s 250 of the Act as mentioned in the previous paragraphs. In the light of the fact that the nature and source of cash deposits have not been explained with documentary evidences, the addition made u/s.68