MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and is hit by the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. 4.1 So far as second proviso inserted by Financial Act, 2012, whether it is prospective or retrospective, he has relied on the decision in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT, Kerala High Court (no citation) and also

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and is hit by the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. 4.1 So far as second proviso inserted by Financial Act, 2012, whether it is prospective or retrospective, he has relied on the decision in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT, Kerala High Court (no citation) and also

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and is hit by the provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act. 4.1 So far as second proviso inserted by Financial Act, 2012, whether it is prospective or retrospective, he has relied on the decision in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT, Kerala High Court (no citation) and also

CRAFTSMAN AUTOMATION LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT,CC-2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.177/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Craftsman Automation Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Senthel Towers’, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, 1078, Avinashi Road, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aabcc2461K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore, Dated 30.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

69C of the Act without giving proper findings. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for quashing the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. PCIT. 5 I.T.A. No.177/Chny/21 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record

TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 69C of the Act. 3. Revenue’s Appeal: The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payment made for civil contract works without deducting TDS

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 69C of the Act. 3. Revenue’s Appeal: The Revenue has raised three grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Ld.AO U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards payment made for civil contract works without deducting TDS

PRAKASH SHIPPING AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act envisages that expenditure whose source is unexplained by the assessee but not the expenditure which is recorded in the books of accounts is to be added. Here, he explained that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts is evidenced by self-made vouchers. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order

PRAKASH SHIPPING AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act envisages that expenditure whose source is unexplained by the assessee but not the expenditure which is recorded in the books of accounts is to be added. Here, he explained that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts is evidenced by self-made vouchers. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order

PRAKASH SHIPPING AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act envisages that expenditure whose source is unexplained by the assessee but not the expenditure which is recorded in the books of accounts is to be added. Here, he explained that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts is evidenced by self-made vouchers. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order

PRAKASH SHIPPING AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act envisages that expenditure whose source is unexplained by the assessee but not the expenditure which is recorded in the books of accounts is to be added. Here, he explained that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts is evidenced by self-made vouchers. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order

PRAKASH SHIPPING AGENCIES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

69C of the Act envisages that expenditure whose source is unexplained by the assessee but not the expenditure which is recorded in the books of accounts is to be added. Here, he explained that expenditure recorded in the books of accounts is evidenced by self-made vouchers. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

TDS thereupon. The Ld. AO observed that in AY-2014-15 also assessee had shown an amount of Rs.10,78,13,729/- out of debit entry of Rs.21,86,23,998/-. Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. AO has drawn a wrong conclusion that the assessee is claiming twice deduction in respect of Rs.10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

TDS thereupon. The Ld. AO observed that in AY-2014-15 also assessee had shown an amount of Rs.10,78,13,729/- out of debit entry of Rs.21,86,23,998/-. Thus, the Ld. Counsel argued that the Ld. AO has drawn a wrong conclusion that the assessee is claiming twice deduction in respect of Rs.10

ARIHANT RETAIL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

section 263 are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case 4. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that there was no error or prejudice much less both to warrant the invocation of the powers conferred u/s.263. 5. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that 263 proceedings cannot

RAVILLA AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the applicability of second proviso was not examined in granting an opportunity to the appellant to establish the fulfilment of the conditions therein. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the contentions and arguments put forth by the appellant were

NATIONAL AGRO FOODS,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2554/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S National Agro Foods, The Income Tax Officer, 141, Mangalam Road, Avinashi, V. Ward – I(2), Tirupur – 641 654. Tirupur. Pan : Aahfn 1444 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee was supplier of jaggery to Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. The assessee purchased jaggery from agriculturists and traders and made payments for such purchases. In fact, the jaggery was purchased during the months of December, 2008 and January, 2009. During

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

69C of the Act and added to the income returned. Further, in the P&L account, the assessee has debited interest on income tax and income tax to the tune of ₹.62,128/- & ₹.1,48,647/- totalling to ₹.2,10,775/-, which needs to be disallowed. Though the assessee has shown in the computation statement profit

N.K.MOHNOT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, ITA Nos.1384, 1385 and 1387/Mds/2016 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

TDS certificate. The CIT(A) referred to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. K.Thangamani, a copy of Madras High Court judgment is not available on record. Therefore, we are unable to go through the judgment of the Madras High Court. It is also an admitted fact that for the assessment year 1985-86, this Tribunal found that

N.K.MOHNOT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, ITA Nos.1384, 1385 and 1387/Mds/2016 are allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

TDS certificate. The CIT(A) referred to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT Vs. K.Thangamani, a copy of Madras High Court judgment is not available on record. Therefore, we are unable to go through the judgment of the Madras High Court. It is also an admitted fact that for the assessment year 1985-86, this Tribunal found that