M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on bogus purchase. 23. As per information received from the O/o DDIT (Inv.), Pune, wherein, it was stated that

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

bogus, then as a corollary, at the time of search, the\nphysical inventory ought to have been higher than the closing inventory\nas per books, which was not the case and instead the inventory physically\nfound and as per books stood fully reconciled. The assessee further\nsubmitted that even the inventory details, purchases and sales found in\nthe books

MANIKANDAN SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ,THIRUMANGALAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

depreciation and taxes is Rs.9,53,900/-. The average sales per month comes to Rs.5,20,843/- and purchases to Rs.4,65,057/-. The average total sales/purchases from 01.04.2016 to 31.10.2016 works out to Rs.36,45,901/- & 32,55,399/- respectively. Thus, the available balance as on 01.11.2016 is Rs.3,90,502/- plus sales made from 01.11.2016 to 8.11.2016. Thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. M/S INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO., 100% EOU, TUTICORIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

INDUSTRIAL MINERAL CO, 100%EOU,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.390/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou Acit बनाम/ 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Central Circle-(1), Vs. Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin-628 006. Madurai "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.529/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit M/S. Industrial Mineral Co. 100% Eou बनाम/ Central Circle-(1), 1/1C, Harbour Express Highway, Vs. Madurai Thermal Nagar So, Tuticorin 628006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaafi-9714-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

depreciation component, the net gap was Rs.41.87 Crores. The difference of Rs.32 Crores was nothing but transfer from VV through Arbitration. The remaining difference was on account of difference in closing stock valuation, discrepancy in other income & expenses which has been tabulated at para-131 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO added the remaining component of Rs.9.87 Crores

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

bogus FDI and hence, in this assessment year, the AO added an amount of Rs.278,32,93,118/- as unexplained cash credit being source of funds utilized for purchase of land u/s.68 of the Act. For this, the AO concluded as under:- “19. From the above, it is evident that the M/s. Chennai Properties and Investment Limited had no business

BRAHMAR CELLULOSE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

depreciable asset against which Short Term Capital Loss on sale of shares of Rs.7 crore was set off by the appellant. The A.O. noted that the appellant company bought 20,00,000 shares of M/s. Microbial Technologies India on 15th June 2011 which were held by M/s Liquor India Limited through 4 persons namely Shri G. Bharat, Shri G. Siddharth

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. VV TITANIUM PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TISAIYANVILAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. VV TITANIUM PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TISAIYANVILAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2., MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. VV TITANIUM PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TISAIYANVILAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2., MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. VV TITANIUM PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TISAIYANVILAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. VV TITANIUM PIGMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, TISAIYANVILAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1301/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1302/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1304/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1305/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S V.V. Titanium Pigments Pvt.Ltd Acit बनाम/ Mahadevankulam, Keeraikaranthattu Central Circle-2 Vs. Tisayanvillai, Tirunelveli-627 657. Madurai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcv-7723-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1316/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 7. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1312/Chny/2024 (िनधा+रण वष+ / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1313/Chny/2024

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin District. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search but purely based on statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any incriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld. AO did not attempt

V.V. TTITANIUM PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.,,TIRUNELVELI vs. ACIT, CC-2,, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed

purchase of 1.83 acres of land at Tuticorin\nDistrict. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that this addition was not based on any\nincriminating material found during the course of search but purely based\non statement recorded from Shri J. Thangadurai. In the absence of any\nincriminating material, no such addition could have even made. The Ld.\nAO did not attempt

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

bogus and fictitious, the Gross Profit admitted in the return of income for the year towards these fictitious sale is reduced. The G.P admitted ITA No.327 /Chny/2024 during the year is 21% and the GP admitted on the fictitious sale amounting to Rs. 1,76,78,010/- is reduced’. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the AO, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation, as her business income. On this\nbasis, the assessee submitted that the business income of Rs.20,64,120/- as\ndisclosed in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year was in\nline with the statement furnished during the course of survey. It was, therefore,\nrequested that no addition be made to the returned income and that