MINAL SHROFF,RS PURAM TAMILNADU vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD -2(3), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus\ncapital gain from penny stocks and the same has been claimed as exempt\nincome.\n6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income: On\nbasis of the above facts as established in Paragraph-5, I have reason to\nbelieve that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the\nmeaning of section 147 and such

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4, COIMBATORE vs. NAVARATNA MAALIGAI, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 801/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 48/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Navaratna Maaligai, Income Tax, V. No. 362, Raja Street, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 001. Aayakar Bhavan, [Pan: Aaifn-6257-E] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

exempted category of people, no other person was allowed to accept SBN (Specified Bank Notes) during the demonetization period. One of the reasons in the Notification No. 2652 dated 08.11.2016 is "2. SBNs being used for storage of unaccounted wealth". The Ld. CIT(A) should have appreciated the assessment order in the background of the idea of SBNs being used

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), , COIMBATORE vs. M/S SURABII GOLD , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

exempt category of persons, no other person was allowed to accept specified bank notes during demonetization period, as per notifications issued by the Government of India and RBI. The ld. DR, further submitted that from 08.11.2016 onwards legal tender of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes were withdrawn by the Government of India. The RBI has issued guidelines from

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-3(3), CHENNAI vs. BARAI HITENDRA SUNITA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3457/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ms. Barai Hitendra Sunita, Non Corporate Ward 3(3), No. 35, Poes Garden, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 086. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Bkops4159K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11.01.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 23.10.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has examined the issue in detail and came to a conclusion that the shares purchased by the assessee from a company, which was a bogus

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)

bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation of disallowance made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, 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)

bogus purchases and addition under section 69A of the Act for AY 2011-12. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 29. The next common ground raised in the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is with regard to the confirmation of disallowance made

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

bogus\nexpenses towards any undisclosed asset or undisclosed investment or\nundisclosed expenditure. Moreover, the Appellant explained in the\nretraction statement that the deposition given by him during the search\nis not correct since he lacked personal knowledge of accounts and he\ncould not take any inputs from the accounting team or any other\nprofessional while giving the statement

MANJU BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

bogus in nature despite providing salient evidences such as off market Purchase of shares vide contract note, sale of shares through recognized stock exchange covered by contract note, payments made through proper banking channels, Holding of shares in D-Mat Account from the instance of purchase till the date of sale and confirmation of payment of STT. The said uncontroverted

RAMACHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON COPORATE CIRCLE-2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.775 /Chny/2023 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ramachandran The Asst. Commissioner Of Old No.9, New No.19, Vs. Income Tax, Jumaulingam Street, Non-Corporate Circle-2 Mylapore, Chennai Chennai-600004 [Pan: Aaqhr6150N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053343791(1) Dated 31.05.2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2015- 16. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 31.05.2023 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

exempt income of Rs.4,02,07,850/- in ITR V. The Ld. AO noticed that the assesse had not traded any shares in FY-2012-13 and 2013-14 and in FY 2014-15. The Ld. AO thus concluded that the shares of KAPPAC (one of the penny stock companies reportedly used for proving bogus entries) were purchased

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

bogus. Further, the assessee has submitted that the books of accounts of assessee are audited and no defect has been pointed out by the auditor in the maintenance of books of accounts. Further, the books of accounts have not rejected by the Assessing Officer. The total sales as reflected in the Sales Register tally with

M/S. ALKRAF THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-\n13, 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed\nOrder pronounced on the 18th day of February, 2026, in Chennai

exemption will not arise. The Ld. AR further took us through the\ndetails of value additions undertaken at UTK Unit to show that the UTK\nUnit was not a pass-through unit, as being alleged by lower authorities,\nbut was actually manufacturing a distinct product. It was brought to our\nnotice that, the value of goods procured from Chennai plant

M/S.ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

exemption will not arise. The Ld. AR further took us through the details of value additions undertaken at UTK Unit to show that the UTK Unit was not a pass-through unit, as being alleged by lower authorities, but was actually manufacturing a distinct product. It was brought to our notice that, the value of goods procured from Chennai plant

M/S. ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

exemption will not arise. The Ld. AR further took us through the details of value additions undertaken at UTK Unit to show that the UTK Unit was not a pass-through unit, as being alleged by lower authorities, but was actually manufacturing a distinct product. It was brought to our notice that, the value of goods procured from Chennai plant

M/S. ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

exemption will not arise. The Ld. AR further took us through the details of value additions undertaken at UTK Unit to show that the UTK Unit was not a pass-through unit, as being alleged by lower authorities, but was actually manufacturing a distinct product. It was brought to our notice that, the value of goods procured from Chennai plant

M/S. ALKRAFT THERMOTECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

exemption will not arise. The Ld. AR further took us through the details of value additions undertaken at UTK Unit to show that the UTK Unit was not a pass-through unit, as being alleged by lower authorities, but was actually manufacturing a distinct product. It was brought to our notice that, the value of goods procured from Chennai plant

R. SHOBHA LODHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CROP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

purchased these shares in cash and there are no broker notes available with the appellant. (ii) The appellant had not shown these transactions in the Return of Income filed by the appellant and had claimed it to be exempted u/s 10(38) without claiming it in the Return of Income. This raises suspicion that the appellant wanted to conceal these

NARENDRA DEVAKINANDAN HARLALKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1089/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus long term capital gains/ short term capital gains to facilitate tax evasion. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the :-4-: ITA. No:1089/Chny/2019 Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has purchased and sold shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd and Tuni Textiles, the penny stock companies, in connection with entry

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus expenses. Hence, the contention of the AO that the facts and findings with regard to the transactions of bulk expense entries are evident on mere perusal of the seized tally accounts without any aid from the sworn statements cannot be regarded as acceptable. 11.7 In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the retraction statements have

SHIR. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MADURAI, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus expenses. Hence, the contention of the AO that the facts and findings with regard to the transactions of bulk expense entries are evident on mere perusal of the seized tally accounts without any aid from the sworn statements cannot be regarded as acceptable. 11.7 In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the retraction statements have