ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(vii) alleging receipt of cash without consideration. He thus urged us that such whimsical action taken by the AO u/s 153C of the Act ought to be struck down. 22. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act. Before we advert to the legal issue raised by the assessee, it would first

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(vii) alleging receipt of cash without consideration. He thus urged us that such whimsical action taken by the AO u/s 153C of the Act ought to be struck down. 22. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant provisions of the Act. Before we advert to the legal issue raised by the assessee, it would first

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

56(2)(vii) alleging receipt of cash without consideration. He\nthus urged us that such whimsical action taken by the AO u/s 153C of the\nAct ought to be struck down.\n22. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant provisions\nof the Act. Before we advert to the legal issue raised by the assessee, it\nwould first

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

bogus and fictitious\ntrail. The Ld AO also observed that the sale of fine dining division of\nOCPL to CCMPL included a significantly valued property at 71 cathedral\nroad in Chennai, which was again sold by OCPL to assessee's wife\nMs.Badrunissa at a much lower value. The Ld.AO concluded that the\nentire share transfer transaction was built to avoid

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

vii) Kunrathur Project Site\n14,87,97,000\n(714 pt)\n(viii) Kunrathur Project Site\n11,00,39,000\n(713 pt)\n(C) Other Advances\n1091,000\n(i) Land Advance Nemeli\n91,000\nVillage\n(ii) Land Pazhanthandalam\n10,00,000\nAdv to Mohan.K\nCash and Cash Equivalents\n10,602\nCash in hand\n10,602\nTotal\n134

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

section 56(vii) of the Income Tax Act under the head income from other sources. ITA. No:2785/Chny/2024 The appellant in his submissions stated that in exchange of transfer by way of sale of UPSPL shares to EMIL and pursuant to the share purchase agreement dated 24.02.2015, EMIL had approached their Board of Directors, shareholders, stock exchanges

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In\nthe said case, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees\nwere habitual offenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there\nis nothing in the present case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement\nmade by Mr. Anu Aggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such\nadmission.\"\n(c) PCIT

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

56(2)(vii) of the Act; and therefore the decision taken by us in the matters of Shri Arvind Nandagopal would apply mutatis mutandis to this case as well. While deciding the appeals of the assessee’s son, Shri Arvind Nandagopal in ITA Nos. 2270 to 2274/Chny/2024, we have held that the AO’s usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 153C

MANJU BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

bogus in nature despite providing salient evidences such as off market Purchase of shares vide contract note, sale of shares through recognized stock exchange covered by contract note, payments made through proper banking channels, Holding of shares in D-Mat Account from the instance of purchase till the date of sale and confirmation of payment of STT. The said uncontroverted

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In\nthe said case, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees\nwere habitual offenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there\nis nothing in the present case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement\nmade by Mr. Anu Aggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such\nadmission.\"\n(c) PCIT

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

purchases, is non-existent in the present case. In\nthe said case, there was a factual finding to the effect that the Assessees\nwere habitual offenders, indulging in clandestine operations whereas there\nis nothing in the present case, whatsoever, to suggest that any statement\nmade by Mr. Anu Aggarwal or Mr. Harjeet Singh contained any such\nadmission.\"\n(c) PCIT

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

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 the point of PGF but from the point of actual persons who had routed the money

DY. CIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RKR GOLD PVT LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 10/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Rkr Gold Pvt Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 169, T.V. Samy Road West, Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore South, Corporate Circle-1, Aayakar Coimbatore – 641 002. Bhavan, [Pan: Aadcr-4414-M] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri.R.Clement Ramesh, Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate & Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

section 69A of the IT Act 1961, where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewelry or valuable article is not recorded in {the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

vii) The assessee has also brought on record several \ncontemporaneous facts regarding the construction work done by CBPL, \nbills raised by them, rate revisions agreed upon etc., as discussed \nabove, which disproves the theory of the Revenue that the 15% \ndiscount given by CBPL on their bills was being paid by the assessee in \ncash. \n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024

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

PURCHASE BULLION PURCHASE BULLION 13750.00 ITA Nos.1178 to 1182/Chny/2025 to 1182/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1393 ITA Nos.1393 to 1397/Chny/2025 (AYs: 2017 : 2017-18 to 2021-22) M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd M/s. Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd ::29 :: (13750X99.5%) (13750X99.5%) ALLOY =91.70% ALLOY =91.70% 1169.57 Gold + Alloy Gold + Alloy 14919.57 GOLD WT (13750.00 X99.5) GOLD WT (13750.00 X99.5) 13681.25 BALANCE WT GHAT

MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

purchase of gold bullion and \nmanufacturing of gold ornaments is considered, the facts are entirely \ndifferent from the statement of Shri Rajendra Kothari as above. In the \nverification carried out by the AO in the remand proceedings, he had \nconcluded that the alloy is calculated on the basis of conversion of 24 \ncarat bullion into 22 carat gold ornaments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

purchase of gold bullion and\nmanufacturing of gold ornaments is considered, the facts are entirely\ndifferent from the statement of Shri Rajendra Kothari as above. In the\nverification carried out by the AO in the remand proceedings, he had\nconcluded that the alloy is calculated on the basis of conversion of 24\ncarat bullion into 22 carat gold ornaments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

purchase of gold bullion and\nmanufacturing of gold ornaments is considered, the facts are entirely\ndifferent from the statement of Shri Rajendra Kothari as above. In the\nverification carried out by the AO in the remand proceedings, he had\nconcluded that the alloy is calculated on the basis of conversion of 24\ncarat bullion into 22 carat gold ornaments