B.DHANASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.365/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri R. Dhanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner Of R-3, Tnhb Shopping Complex, Vs. Income Tax, Shastri Nagar, 1St Avenue, Adyar, Non Corporate Circle – 15(1), Chennai 600 020. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Adxpd7168E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

TDS certificate. It was further observed that the agreements executed by the assessee with the clients are ‘contract agreements’ and not ‘development agreements’. Since the provisions of section 80IA of the Act shall not apply to a person who executes works contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

124 (P&H). 23.2. In my opinion, with respect, the court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case, ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to be read in conjunction with the main provision, and that, the said Explanation cannot override the main provision. 23.3. This aspect of the matter has also been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

124 (P&H). 23.2. In my opinion, with respect, the court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case, ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to be read in conjunction with the main provision, and that, the said Explanation cannot override the main provision. 23.3. This aspect of the matter has also been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

124 (P&H). 23.2. In my opinion, with respect, the court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case, ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to be read in conjunction with the main provision, and that, the said Explanation cannot override the main provision. 23.3. This aspect of the matter has also been brought

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

124 (P&H). 23.2. In my opinion, with respect, the court, in rendering the judgment in Majinder Singh Kang's case, ignored the fact that the provisions of Explanation 3 had to be read in conjunction with the main provision, and that, the said Explanation cannot override the main provision. 23.3. This aspect of the matter has also been brought

COASTAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2305/Chny/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Coastal Energy Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5, Buhari Buildings, Moores Road, Income Tax, Thousand Lights, Chennai 600 006. Company Circle I(3), Chennai. [Pan: Aaacc4160A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

section 154 of the Act, which specifically seeking the error in the original assessment by furnishing revised arm’s length price, the detailed computation is reproduced as under: Name of Rate Qty Price before Discount Price after Index Price Range Conclusion Vessel before discount discount discount Coastal

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ppeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS has to be deducted or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas or not when the commission payment made to the overseas agents, the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the isuse

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

124/-. 17. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing to levy interest under section 234B of the Act of Rs. 1,07,06,266/-. 18. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

124/-. 17. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing to levy interest under section 234B of the Act of Rs. 1,07,06,266/-. 18. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

124 430404 104287764 08-09 82499 23670 1952751330 98110 495 48564450 2001315780 09-10 26616 28618 761696688 35510 395 14026450 775723138 2892011209 ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 15 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter made a close analysis of 10. the books of accounts of the assessee and found that it was receiving cash advance

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

124 430404 104287764 08-09 82499 23670 1952751330 98110 495 48564450 2001315780 09-10 26616 28618 761696688 35510 395 14026450 775723138 2892011209 ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 15 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter made a close analysis of 10. the books of accounts of the assessee and found that it was receiving cash advance

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

124 430404 104287764 08-09 82499 23670 1952751330 98110 495 48564450 2001315780 09-10 26616 28618 761696688 35510 395 14026450 775723138 2892011209 ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 15 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter made a close analysis of 10. the books of accounts of the assessee and found that it was receiving cash advance

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

124 430404 104287764 08-09 82499 23670 1952751330 98110 495 48564450 2001315780 09-10 26616 28618 761696688 35510 395 14026450 775723138 2892011209 ITA Nos. 1447, 1448, 1988, :- 15 -: 1989, 1449 to 1455, 1485 to 1491/17. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter made a close analysis of 10. the books of accounts of the assessee and found that it was receiving cash advance

SIVA VALLI VILAS JEWELLERS PVT LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT PONDICHERRY CIRCLE, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3071/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S.Siva Valli Vilas Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 152, Kalatheeswaran Koil Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry- 605 001. Pondicherry Circle-6(2), Puducherry. Pan: Aarcs 2249B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

3,92,47,030/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed wastage of 6755.29 gms of gold, while manufacturing gold jewellery and hence, called upon the assessee to justify claim of huge wastage which works out 6.2%, when normal wastage in the industry

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

TDS provisions for labour payments in the absence of the contract(s), the sustenance of disallowance on wrong grounds was bad in law. 7. The CIT(Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in paragraph 5.3.3 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT(Appeals) erred in partly considering one facet

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

TDS provisions for labour payments in the absence of the contract(s), the sustenance of disallowance on wrong grounds was bad in law. 7. The CIT(Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in paragraph 5.3.3 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT(Appeals) erred in partly considering one facet

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

TDS provisions for labour payments in the absence of the contract(s), the sustenance of disallowance on wrong grounds was bad in law. 7. The CIT(Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in paragraph 5.3.3 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT(Appeals) erred in partly considering one facet

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

124/- being deposited out of the pharmacy sales and hospital collection during the demonetization period which is already accounted in the books of accounts as sales. Since the source has been reasonably explained by the appellant, the addition of Rs.5,31,39,462/- is to be deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. --------- 6.4.2. Firstly, it is noticed that

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

124/- being deposited out of the pharmacy sales and hospital collection during the demonetization period which is already accounted in the books of accounts as sales. Since the source has been reasonably explained by the appellant, the addition of Rs.5,31,39,462/- is to be deleted. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed. --------- 6.4.2. Firstly, it is noticed that