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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

property registration document. However, second appeal is suggested to consider the case on merits. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2153-2156/Chny/18 & C.O. Nos. 132-133/Chny/18 8. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO under purchase of copra from market committee on the ground that the assessee company has not made direct purchase from market committee and purchases

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

property registration document. However, second appeal is suggested to consider the case on merits. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2153-2156/Chny/18 & C.O. Nos. 132-133/Chny/18 8. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO under purchase of copra from market committee on the ground that the assessee company has not made direct purchase from market committee and purchases

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

property registration document. However, second appeal is suggested to consider the case on merits. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2153-2156/Chny/18 & C.O. Nos. 132-133/Chny/18 8. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO under purchase of copra from market committee on the ground that the assessee company has not made direct purchase from market committee and purchases

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

property registration document. However, second appeal is suggested to consider the case on merits. 6 I.T.A. Nos.2153-2156/Chny/18 & C.O. Nos. 132-133/Chny/18 8. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the AO under purchase of copra from market committee on the ground that the assessee company has not made direct purchase from market committee and purchases

MRS. URMILA PRAKASH,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-3(5_, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 81/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

bogus claim of deduction u/s. 54 of the Act for construction of residential house at Nirambur Village, Thirukazhukundram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, on the basis of inspector report which was obtained during the course of assessment proceedings after more than three years from the date of construction of house property. He further submitted that although, the AO has referred valuation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GOPU RAJAGOPAL, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The purchases & unexplained expenditure of a company, M/s VNRIL. The assessee who was the Managing Director of the said company and had assessee who was the Managing Director of the said company and had assessee who was the Managing Director

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases from vendors of old liquor bottles and transport vendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services. ation & logistics services. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

bogus purchases from vendors of old liquor bottles and transport vendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services. ation & logistics services. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchases from\nvendors of old liquor bottles and transportation & logistics services.\nConsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice(s) u/s\n148 of the Act dated 30-03-2023 was issued to the assessee for the\nrelevant AYs 2013-14 to 2016-17. The details of the return(s) of income\nfiled in response to notice

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

house property of Rs.7,000/– and\nincome from other sources of Rs.14,826/-. The case was selected for limited\nscrutiny assessment for verification of the following issues: -\ni. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income\nii. Share capital/capital\n6. Consequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2018,\nfollowed by multiple notices u/s.142(1) of the Act.\n7. During

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. JAYARAJ JAISON, TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

house had been gifted to him by his brother two years prior, and he had subsequently undertaken the construction of a new building for business purposes, incurring an expenditure of Rs.60,00,000/-. Accordingly, the assessee agreed to offer the said amount as additional business income. 7. Further, the Authorized Officer inquired into the daily sales figures of the assessee

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales