R. G. SUNDAR & CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on ‘amount of tax on income sought to be evaded’. He noted that the assessee has nowhere disputed the bogus purchases and unearthed all bogus purchases during survey u/s.133A of the Act. According to him, income admitted by assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148

DCIT,NCC 7(1),, CHENNAI vs. RAJU SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.272/Chny/2021 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Raju Saravanan, Income Tax, No.8, G-3 Santham Apts., Thamarai Nagar, 2Nd Street, Non Corporate Circle-7(1), Vs. Chennai. Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Bbcps-8286-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ) की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate +,थ) की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : 08.06.2023 सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai [Cit(A) Dated 18-09-2020 & Pertains To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- “The Learned Cit-A Has Erred In Not Providing An Opportunity To The Ao Under Rule 46A As New Evidence Was Submitted By The Assessee During The Course Of The Appellate Proceedings.” :- 2 -: 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual

purchases accounted by the appellant proved to be genuine and are not inflated or fictitious. Thus, the recording of any bogus cash receipt is not borne out from the facts on record or from the findings of the survey proceedings. Therefore, sales recorded in the books of account of the appellant having been accepted by the AO, the corresponding cash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. ALBA INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e pointed out that, the assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly

A GOVINDARAJ, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2 MADURAI, CENTRAL RANGE, MADURAI vs. CHELLADHURAI RAJASINGH, SIVAKASI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Dcit, Shri Chelladhurai Rajasingh, Central Circle-2, No.84, Railway Feeder Road, Madurai. Kamarajar Road, Sivakasi-626 123. [Pan: Aaqpr 9845 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

251 ITR 782), which are as follows:- “Assessment on the total income of each assessment year has to be made separately and on the basis of fact situation prevailing in the year in question. The Explanation refers to the computation of total income of the individual referred to in clause (i), of section 64(1). It is clearly stipulated

SREE BALAJI BULLIONS,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2302/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Balaji Bullions, Dy. Commissioner Of 22/43, Vasagasalai, Income Tax, Shevapet, V. Circle 1(1), Salem– 636002. Salem. [Pan: Aasfs-5947-E] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : Shri.S.Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By & N.Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

bogus customers name or the identity of the customer who have purchased jewellery by exchanging old jewellery or by paying cheque or any other bank mode details have been used to conceal the assessee's unaccounted income nor the third party unaccounted money who's identity had not been revealed by way of collection of TCS on cash purchases more

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

251&547/CIT(A)-PGY/2013-14 dated 18.05.2016 on the orders of the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. D. Santha, the assessee, an individual has been carrying on business in jewellery apart from pawn broking. For assessment year 2008-09, she did not file her return within the due date

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

purchase peace with the IT Department and avoided protracted litigation, i.e., is voluntary, with nothing adverse having been found against her, the Revenue regards it as not so but only on account of the bogus share application money having been found earlier during the course of the survey proceedings. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held that these expenses were not genuine. He therefore supported

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

purchases. He pointed out that, the assessee was unable to e assessee was unable to furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held furnish supportings for these expenses and therefore the AO rightly held that these expenses were not genuine. He therefore supported

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

251,80,24,276 270,98,30,340 270,98,30,340 129,31,69,663 2. Addition on account of 20,44,84,681 20,44,84,681 41,26,91,635 30,45,93,750 31,00,17,604 31,00,17,604 13,16,35,575 ‘Making Charges’ received from customers 3. Addition on a/c of ‘Byaj

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders