CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain

L KARUPPUSAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisa…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 नधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (यथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the as…

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

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

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the je…

P KUPPUCHAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the je…

P PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41\nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the\nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of\nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal\nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni\n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri\n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that\nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises\nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed.\nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisa…

P PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41\nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the\nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of\nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal\nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni\n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri\n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that\nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises\nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed.\nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…

P PALANISMAY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ==End of OCR for page 49== However, the addition can…

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्र] )/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्र] /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ==End of OCR for page 49== However, the addition can…

M/S. P.P.FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

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

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the je…

P.P. FINANCIERS,DINDIGUL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

…rt in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 \nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the \nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of \nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal \nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni \n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri \n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that \nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises \nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. \nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained,…

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisa…

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41\nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the\nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of\nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal\nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni\n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri\n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that\nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises\nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed.\nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisa…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the as…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1119/Chny/2025 & ‘60’ Others Mr. P. Palanisa…

M/S. P.P. FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 निधारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

…High Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41 Taxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the ambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of the same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni [2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that the value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises it was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed. However, the addition cannot be sustained, as the as…

M/S. P.P. CONSTRUCTIONS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41\nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the\nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of\nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal\nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni\n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri\n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that\nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises\nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed.\nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…

M/S. P.P. CONSTRUCTIONS,KARUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

…Court in Ghanshyamdas Johari (41\nTaxmann.com 295) has held that once jewellery falls within the\nambit of Instruction No. 1916, no addition can be made in respect of\nthe same. Similar conclusions have been reached in CIT v. Ratanlal\nVyaparilal Jain [2011] 339 ITR 351 (Guj), CIT v. Satya Narain Patni\n[2014] 366 ITR 325 (Rajasthan) and CIT v. Ghanshyam Das Johri\n[2014] 41 Taxmann.com 295 (Allahabad). Accordingly, we hold that\nthe value of the gold belongs to the assessee from whose premises\nit was seized and therefore this ground of the assessee is dismissed.\nHowever, the addition cannot be sustained, as t…