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

Section 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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

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

Section 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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

Section 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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

Section 145(3).\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

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

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

Section 145(3).\n\n6.2.30 The jurisdictional tribunal vide its order in ITA No\n366/Chny/2023 dated 09.08.2023 has upheld the decision of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in rejecting the books of accounts\nin the case of M/s. Beach Mineraals Company. The ratio of the above\njudgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the Appellant's case

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate the assessee from the culpability. Having regard to the fact that the asses see had not disclosed any reason for the omission in the original return and that the revised return was filed only after the search, this court held that penalty was leviable" The facts herein are no different from the abovesaid

SHEIKH KUTBUDDIN HABIB,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

purchasing peace, by itself, would not exonerate the assessee from the culpability. Having regard to the fact that the asses see had not disclosed any reason for the omission in the original return and that the revised return was filed only after the search, this court held that penalty was leviable" The facts herein are no different from the abovesaid

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1) , CHENNAI vs. C.V.SUNISH, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1518/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri C.V. Sunish, Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Vs. C/O Aditya Trading Solutions (P) Ltd., 6Th & 7Th Floor, Npl Towers, L.B. Road, 46, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Apfps3125J] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai Dated 15.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of ₹.22,38,721/- Levied Inadvertently Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 6 days, for which, the Revenue has filed petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. 2 I.T.A. No. 1518/Chny/17 Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of 6 days

SELVA GOLD COVERING P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3262/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Selva Gold Covering Pvt. Ltd., C/O Shri S. Sridhar, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sh. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate , V. Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Corporate Circle – 2, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Coimbatore. Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aadcs 0688 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus purchase in its accounts and suppressed sales, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty under Section 271(1

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 claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

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 claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

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 claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

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 claim of refund of fees, all clearly proved diversion of funds to specified persons and Section 13(1) (c) of the Act stood attracted. Viz-a-viz, alleged specific instances falling within Section 22. 13(1) (c) of the Act, arguments taken by the ld. Departmental Representative are summarized here under:- (i) As for the payment of advance

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that the assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses of the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been maintained with regard to payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that the assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses of the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been maintained with regard to payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that the assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses of the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been maintained with regard to payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that the assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses of the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been maintained with regard to payment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

bogus or there should be inflation of purchases to invoke the provisions of section 40A(3) of the LT. Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, it may noted that the assessee and the so called agents could not provide full addresses of the farmers/suppliers of copras nor any details have been maintained with regard to payment