ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

bogus purchases, transportation and port handling charges, and income arising from peak cash flows. Simultaneously, the same Excel sheet records outflows for “speed money,” repayment of mobilized funds, interest payments, and other incidental business expenses, showing a clear correspondence between inflows and outflows. 103. Therefore, when the seized records demonstrate that the amounts received through diversion were used exclusively

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchasers,\nShri Isakkiraja, who confirmed that the assessee was resorting to under-\ninvoicing of sales. Furthermore, the turnover of Rs.6,64,76,379/- had been\ncomputed in the presence of the assessee, based on the noting made by her,\nand not on any estimate prepared by the Department independently. The AO\n:-5-:\nITA. No: 1632/Chny/2025\nobserved that the assessee

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

120, 133 (Jharkhand)}. 6.15 As per the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, before invocation of the said section, proper enquiry is needed. In the case of the appellant, no proper enquiries were conducted by the AO, which is clearly evident from the assessment records. Section 68 empowers the Assessing Officer to make enquiry specifically to be satisfied regarding

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

120 crores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

120 crores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

120 crores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

120\ncrores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and\nothers (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards\nsale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the\ndeal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period\nFY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

120 crores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

120 crores on-\nmoney received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s\nLandmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land at Barracks Road, Perambur,\nChennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received\nduring the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

120 crores on-money received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s Landmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land in Barracks road, Perambur, Chennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received during the period FY 2013- 14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

120 crores on-\nmoney received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s\nLandmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land at Barracks Road, Perambur,\nChennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received\nduring the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

120 crores on-\nmoney received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s\nLandmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land at Barracks Road, Perambur,\nChennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received\nduring the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

120 crores on-\nmoney received in cash) from M/s KLP Projects Private Ltd and others (formerly known as M/s\nLandmark Barracks Projects Pvt. Ltd towards sale of its land at Barracks Road, Perambur,\nChennai. The agreement for the deal was signed on 17.10.2013 and the funds were received\nduring the period FY 2013-14 to FY 2016-17. Further, Binny

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI vs. ESAKKIMUTHU MUTHUVEL IYAPPAN, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

Section 68 of the I.T. Act entailed for cash credits states that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source there of or the explanation offer by the assess is not satisfactory then sum so credited is taxed as income

V SATHYAMOORTHY&CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 69C of the Act was not satisfied in the present case thereby vitiating the disputed addition. 21. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the excel sheet relied upon by the Assessing Officer should not be construed as 'incriminating seized material' and further ought to have appreciated that the contents of the seized material reflecting the actual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the all the appeals filed by the assessee is is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

PURCHASE BULLION PURCHASE BULLION 13750.00 ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs: 2017 : 2017-18 to 2021-22) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::29 :: (13750X99.5%) (13750X99.5%) ALLOY =91.70% ALLOY =91.70% 1169.57 Gold + Alloy Gold + Alloy 14919.57 GOLD WT (13750.00 X99.5) GOLD WT (13750.00 X99.5) 13681.25 BALANCE WT GHAT

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books