Krishan Kumar Singhania v. DCIT

88 Taxmann.com 259Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#3995 most cited

What is Krishan Kumar Singhania v. DCIT authority for?

Assessments made under Section 153A or 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad-in-law if they include additions pertaining to a person other than the person searched, especially when the assessment year is unabated. Such additions cannot be sustained and should be deleted.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Krishan Kumar Singhania v. DCIT · section 153A · section 153C · search assessment · unabated assessment year · bad-in-law assessment · additions pertaining to other person · undisclosed interest income

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Krishan Kumar Singhania v. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 189/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke DCIT, Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Circle-03, 137-138, Industrial Area, Jaipur Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1909/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1908/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1907/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

KRISHNAPPA GOWDER KALYANASUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1906/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1906/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1907/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1908/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1909/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Krishnappa Gowder Kalyanasundaram Dcit बनाम/ 83/1, Smt Towers, Teacher’S Colony, Central Circle-3 Vs. Karamadai, Coimbatore-641104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Afbpk-6901-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015- 16 To 2018-19 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

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

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT,CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1229/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

SG WIND FAARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3,, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1228/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

SG WIND FARM PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, COIMBATORE

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1227/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

…other than the person searched. Similar is the view of Bangalore Tribunal in ACIT Vs. P. Shyamaraju & Co. India Pvt. Ltd (ITA Nos.978 to 984/Bang/2014 dated 25-04-2022) as well the decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Krishan Kumar Singhania vs. DCIT (88 Taxmann.com 259). 12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid settled position of law, we would hold that the assessment, for all the years, would be bad-in-law and therefore, the impugned addition could not be sustained on this score only. We order so. In other words, the impugned addition of alleged undisclosed interest income stands deleted. The return of…

Showing 120 of 30 · Page 1 of 2