ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

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

purchase basis' as well as on 'lease/rent basis', a reassessment notice issued after four years has been held not to suffer from any illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned

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

purchase basis' as well as on 'lease/rent basis', a reassessment notice issued after four years has been held not to suffer from any illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned

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

purchase basis' as well as on 'lease/rent basis', a reassessment notice issued after four years has been held not to suffer from any illegality as the same was based on the bona fide action of the competent authority to determine whether or not the vehicles in respect of which the petitioner had been claiming depreciation, were actually owned

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]

56 & 56A, Thirumalai Pillai though Shri.Sampath a trustee was not a violation falling under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. 20 CIT(A) erroneously held that --- 7 to 7.2 5 to 5.2 10.2 Purchase of property by Preetha, daughter-in-law of Managing Trustee for 40 lakhs, though a loan application showed the value as 1.25 crore, and there

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]

56 & 56A, Thirumalai Pillai though Shri.Sampath a trustee was not a violation falling under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. 20 CIT(A) erroneously held that --- 7 to 7.2 5 to 5.2 10.2 Purchase of property by Preetha, daughter-in-law of Managing Trustee for 40 lakhs, though a loan application showed the value as 1.25 crore, and there

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]

56 & 56A, Thirumalai Pillai though Shri.Sampath a trustee was not a violation falling under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. 20 CIT(A) erroneously held that --- 7 to 7.2 5 to 5.2 10.2 Purchase of property by Preetha, daughter-in-law of Managing Trustee for 40 lakhs, though a loan application showed the value as 1.25 crore, and there

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]

56 & 56A, Thirumalai Pillai though Shri.Sampath a trustee was not a violation falling under Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. 20 CIT(A) erroneously held that --- 7 to 7.2 5 to 5.2 10.2 Purchase of property by Preetha, daughter-in-law of Managing Trustee for 40 lakhs, though a loan application showed the value as 1.25 crore, and there

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

VI, Chennai - 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr.Standing Counsel "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13.02.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN

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

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

vi. The assessee AEPL has not repudiated the trail of transactions recorded by the AO. vii. The tailor-made valuation report shows that the investment is not done independently by PGF from its own source and it is dictated as per the terms of the assessee AEPL. viii. Therefore, the capacity and creditworthiness is not to be seen from