Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713Supreme Court of India1980#46 most cited

What is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

962

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT · 125 ITR 713 · natural justice · cross-examination · evidence · third party statement · retracted statement · opportunity to rebut · assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 148Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bbsection 292cretracted statementdumb documentssection 132(4a)on-moneyloose papersdocuments seizedlive linksection 34section 69bsection 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 302/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 301/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 300/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 299/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 296/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 295/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 275/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 274/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

DCIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi vs. Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi

ITA 273/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

Neel Metal Products Ltd (Formely Known As Neel Auto Pvt Ltd), New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 240/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 239/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 238/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

Neel Metal Products Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-25, New Delhi

ITA 232/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

…so drawn up by learned AO neither Sh. S.K. Mishra was allowed to be cross examined by learned AO or CIT (A) and as such, the said excel sheet found from residence of Sh. S.K. Mishra, should not have been relied. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) 125 ITR 713 dated 16.09.1980 (SC) Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT ii) 62 Taxmann.com 3 dated 02.09.2015 Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE iii) PCIT vs Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 397 ITR 82 iv) 322 ITR 396 dated 16.02.2010 CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 23.2 Further, it is submitted that the assessee company is a manufacturing company a…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Arun Malhotra

ITA/118/2020HC Delhi03 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 158Section 158BSection 40A(3)

…er Section 158 BC of the Act. Tribunal has observed that statement of Chander Prakash Sachdeva has to be ignored and cannot be relied upon for adverse findings. Reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in Kishindchand Chellarama vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) and decision of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del). It has been observed that as the entire addition had been deleted, findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding Section 40A(3) no longer survived. Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:10.07.2024 16:34:10 Signature Not Verified…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…d to the appellant. Additions made without providing copies of statement and granting opportunity of cross examination is against the principles of natural justice and the consequent proceedings is void ab initio. 3.10.2 In Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Court held that the department is bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the piece of evidence on which it places reliance to draw an adverse inference to make any addition or disallowance. 3.10.3The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 observed as under in conte…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…d to the appellant. Additions made without providing copies of statement and granting opportunity of cross examination is against the principles of natural justice and the consequent proceedings is void ab initio. 3.10.2 In Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Court held that the department is bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the piece of evidence on which it places reliance to draw an adverse inference to make any addition or disallowance. 3.10.3The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 observed as under in conte…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…d to the appellant. Additions made without providing copies of statement and granting opportunity of cross examination is against the principles of natural justice and the consequent proceedings is void ab initio. 3.10.2 In Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Court held that the department is bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the piece of evidence on which it places reliance to draw an adverse inference to make any addition or disallowance. 3.10.3The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 observed as under in conte…

Radiant Cement Company Private Limited, Kala Amb, Sirmour vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO, Nahan, Sirmour

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 186/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 186/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Radiant Cement Company Private Vs. The Ito, Limited, बनाम Nahan, Kala Amb, Sirmour Sirmour "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacr8765J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR

…rofit is very low as low as 2% to 5% only, so, the issue decided in the case of Metal Products of India (supra) may not be applied to the instant case. Further, the Counsel of the Assessee has brought on record the case law of ‘Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT’, 125 ITR 713, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any material collected at the back of the Assessee and not confronted and no opportunity given to cross-examine, such material cannot be relied upon against the Assessee. 14. Finally, after taking into consideration all the facts, findings of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), and submissions a…

Indu Mahendra Shah (L/H of Late Shri Mahendra G. Shah), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 856/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…r information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the transaction of the sale of shares of M/s Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. 2 as bo…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tvs Investments Lrd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Dr. D. Praveen (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. AR

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ'वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम)। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) DCIT M/s. TVS Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly known as TVS Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACT-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respo…