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

x) of the Act of a particular sum [for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19], without having received or accrued or earned by the appellant is against the provisions of the Act and Article 265 of the Constitution which states that -'no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law' 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

x) of the Act of a particular sum [for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19], without having received or accrued or earned by the appellant is against the provisions of the Act and Article 265 of the Constitution which states that -'no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law' 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

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

x) of the Act of a particular sum [for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19],\nwithout having received or accrued or earned by the appellant is against the\nprovisions of the Act and Article 265 of the Constitution which states that -'no\ntax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law'\n5.7 The Ld. CIT(A) ought

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

Section 47(xiv) it is apparent that where the sole proprietorship\nconcern is succeeded by a company in the business carried on by it, as a\nresult of which some proprietary concern seeks or otherwise transfers any\ncapital asset or intangible asset to the company, the transactions are not\ntreated as transfer subject to the three conditions laid down therein

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

56,64,328/- was shown to have been purchased from the above-said five traders. Totally, for various assessment years, an amount of Rs.107,64,57,214/- was claimed as copra purchases from these trading concerns in Kerala. Enquiries revealed that all the aforesaid five concerns are run by Shri M. Shajahan and his wife Smt. .S. Niharbanu. Post-search

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

56,64,328/- was shown to have been purchased from the above-said five traders. Totally, for various assessment years, an amount of Rs.107,64,57,214/- was claimed as copra purchases from these trading concerns in Kerala. Enquiries revealed that all the aforesaid five concerns are run by Shri M. Shajahan and his wife Smt. .S. Niharbanu. Post-search

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

56,64,328/- was shown to have been purchased from the above-said five traders. Totally, for various assessment years, an amount of Rs.107,64,57,214/- was claimed as copra purchases from these trading concerns in Kerala. Enquiries revealed that all the aforesaid five concerns are run by Shri M. Shajahan and his wife Smt. .S. Niharbanu. Post-search

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

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

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

X 100) 3000.00 BALANCE WT GHAT ( P NO BALANCE WT GHAT ( P NO – 271.54 32) SURABI BULLION SURABI BULLION INVOICE NOG 1138 INVOICE NOG 1138 MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PVT MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PVT LTD INVOICE NO INVOICE NO-G-327 PURCHASE PURCHASE BULLION 7091.45 (4000.00+3091.45 (4000.00+3091.45- 7091.45X99.5%) 7091.45X99.5%) ALLOY = 91.70% ALLOY = 91.70% 603.19 Gold + Alloy Gold + Alloy

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relying upon Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, ITA Nos.675 to 675 to 680/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016 16-17 to 2021-22) M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 38 :: submitted that, the entries in the books

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

purchases are nothing but expenditure. If Sundry Creditors are not proved by the assessee, addition can made by the assessing officer by resorting to section 68 rws 69C. Similar view has been expressed by Honourable Karnataka High Court in Shri Suresh Kumar. T. Jain Vs ITO, ITA No.160 of 201. In this case books of accounts were not found during

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

purchases are nothing but expenditure. If Sundry Creditors are not proved by the assessee, addition can made by the assessing officer by resorting to section 68 rws 69C. Similar view has been expressed by Honourable Karnataka High Court in Shri Suresh Kumar. T. Jain Vs ITO, ITA No.160 of 201. In this case books of accounts were not found during

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

purchases are nothing but expenditure. If Sundry Creditors are not proved by the assessee, addition can made by the assessing officer by resorting to section 68 rws 69C. Similar view has been expressed by Honourable Karnataka High Court in Shri Suresh Kumar. T. Jain Vs ITO, ITA No.160 of 201. In this case books of accounts were not found during

SUNDARAM SANKAR ANAND,KARUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

purchases are nothing but expenditure. If Sundry Creditors are not proved by the assessee, addition can made by the assessing officer by resorting to section 68 rws 69C. Similar view has been expressed by Honourable Karnataka High Court in Shri Suresh Kumar. T. Jain Vs ITO, ITA No.160 of 201. In this case books of accounts were not found during