DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n| 2021-22\n| 5,32,10,303/-\n| 2022-23\n| 15,96,75,209/-\n| TOTAL\n| 31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/- |\n| 5,32,10,303/- |\n| 15,96,75,209/- |\n| 31,13,06,763/- |\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded\ntherein

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

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

2) of the Act dated 16-08-2018 and under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27-05-2019 along with the questionnaire were served upon the assessee. The assessee, in response to such notices submitted the details and clarifications as called for. The Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee firm is case are that, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach minerals

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee firm is case are that, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach minerals

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee firm is case are that, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach minerals

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee firm is case are that, the assessee firm is engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining of beach minerals

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee-firm is engaged in the business of engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining beach mining, processing and refining beach minerals. A search action

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. Briefly noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee noted the facts of the case are that, the assessee-firm is engaged in the business of engaged in the business of mining, processing and refining beach mining, processing and refining beach minerals. A search action