P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

SILUVAIKANI CHELLIAH,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(6),, TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains at Rs.22,79,080/-. 4. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s.271D of the Act were initiated by issuance of a show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271D of the Act, dated 16.06.2022, by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Range- :-3-: ITA. No.:2655 /Chny/2024 22, Chennai (TBM). The said proceedings were later assigned to the FAO, who passed

KISHANLAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

capital gains at "14,98,780/-. Assessee had through his letter dated 14.03.2014 agreed for adoption of the guideline value u/s.50C of the Act. Having agreed for adopting guideline value, we are of the opinion that assessee cannot now take a grievance that such Section was wrongly applied. Thus, we do not find any merits in grounds

C.KISHANLAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

capital gains at "14,98,780/-. Assessee had through his letter dated 14.03.2014 agreed for adoption of the guideline value u/s.50C of the Act. Having agreed for adopting guideline value, we are of the opinion that assessee cannot now take a grievance that such Section was wrongly applied. Thus, we do not find any merits in grounds

ASIANET COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

sections 271D and 271E of the Act in conjunction with other provisions of the same family and then decided by a reasoned order whether the respondent had been able to make out a case for deleting the penalty. The order passed by the Tribunal should have clearly reflected the application of mind by the learned members.” 5. In view