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

purchase of coconut through bought-notes now offered in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. During the search, it was noticed that the following payments were made to family members as 'Salary' during for the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013- 14 under the heads: Salary details Amount

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

purchase of coconut through bought-notes now offered in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. During the search, it was noticed that the following payments were made to family members as 'Salary' during for the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013- 14 under the heads: Salary details Amount

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

purchase of coconut through bought-notes now offered in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 153A of the Act. During the search, it was noticed that the following payments were made to family members as 'Salary' during for the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013- 14 under the heads: Salary details Amount

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

bogus bought notes could have little relevance in this matter. 5. The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition on the ground that the payment for purchase made through RTGS and the AO has not proved the cash payment by the assessee and also purchase of copra was not refuted. It is further opined that there is no incriminating seized

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CARAT LANE TRADING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 213/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Carat Lane Trading Pvt. Ltd., No. 32, Rutland Gate 2Nd Street, Corporate Circle -1(2), Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aadcc 1791Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase and disallowed Rs. 7,10,666/- & Rs. 73,244/-, PF & ESI payments, respectively, remitted beyond the due date. Aggrieved, theassessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A) and the CIT(A) allowed the appeal . Against the order of the CIT(A) , the Revenue filed this appeal. 3. The DR assailed the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus and therefore the question of limiting the disallowance to such amounts did not arise. According to him, assessee clearly lost the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. Submission of the ld. Departmental Representative was that even a small benefit ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 41 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 derived by the trustees was enough to deprive the trust

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus and therefore the question of limiting the disallowance to such amounts did not arise. According to him, assessee clearly lost the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. Submission of the ld. Departmental Representative was that even a small benefit ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 41 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 derived by the trustees was enough to deprive the trust

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus and therefore the question of limiting the disallowance to such amounts did not arise. According to him, assessee clearly lost the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. Submission of the ld. Departmental Representative was that even a small benefit ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 41 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 derived by the trustees was enough to deprive the trust

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

bogus and therefore the question of limiting the disallowance to such amounts did not arise. According to him, assessee clearly lost the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. Submission of the ld. Departmental Representative was that even a small benefit ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 41 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 derived by the trustees was enough to deprive the trust

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

SHRI. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL,MADURAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO had erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without naming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found to have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL, PALAMEDU MAIN ROAD, MADURAI

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these

A.GOVINDARAJ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, CENTRAL RANGE, MADURAI vs. IRULANDI THEVAR VETRIVEL, PALAMEDU MAIN ROAD MADURAI

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

194C of the Act. We find that, the Ld. CIT(A)\nafter considering the details furnished by the assessee, noted that the AO\nhad erroneously treated these bulk entries as bogus in nature without\nnaming the details of corresponding credit entry. The Ld. CIT(A) is found\nto have recorded categorical finding of fact in respect of each of these