SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

9 & 10 [issue No. 4 of the assessee] is partly allowed. I.T.A. No. 1623/Chny/2018 - A.Y. 2007-08 59. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 32 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 60. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not pressed and accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 61. Ground Nos. 5 to 11 [issue

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

9 & 10 [issue No. 4 of the assessee] is partly allowed. I.T.A. No. 1623/Chny/2018 - A.Y. 2007-08 59. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 32 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 60. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not pressed and accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 61. Ground Nos. 5 to 11 [issue

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

9 & 10 [issue No. 4 of the assessee] is partly allowed. I.T.A. No. 1623/Chny/2018 - A.Y. 2007-08 59. Ground No. 1 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 32 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 60. Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not pressed and accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 61. Ground Nos. 5 to 11 [issue

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Capital Gain’, the question of allowing deduction u/s.54F of the Act, does not arise, and thus, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) to reject deduction claimed u/s.54/54F of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken

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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

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

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

capital\ngain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on\nany incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR\nrelying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nCIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

capital gain in his hand. The AO after going through the facts of the case noted that the assessee is unable to prove the payment made for removal of encroachments, unable to prove payments made for house clearing expenses and also could not produce Shri P.R. Balakrishnan to whom he claimed to have made payment of Rs.2 crore. Therefore

THIRUVENGATAM VINAYAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

40a(ia) on account of interest – Rs.7,16,625/-. d. Disallowance of expenditure – Rs.31,58,736/-. 5.0 The assessee pleaded before the Ld.AO as well as before the Ld.AO that though the return of income was filed after duly getting his accounts audited from an independent C.A, the books of accounts were lost and damaged due to severe floods that

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS.\nThe assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A).\n5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is\nretrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

9 years to the members of the family. Since the assessee did not deduct TDS against the same, Ld. AO proposed disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No.2 of 2002 dated 15.02.2002 and Circular No.4 of 2004 dated 13.05.2004. The Circular No.2/2002 provides that difference between subscription price and redemption price would be treated

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

9 years to the members of the family. Since the assessee did not deduct TDS against the same, Ld. AO proposed disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No.2 of 2002 dated 15.02.2002 and Circular No.4 of 2004 dated 13.05.2004. The Circular No.2/2002 provides that difference between subscription price and redemption price would be treated

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

9 years to the members of the family. Since the assessee did not deduct TDS against the same, Ld. AO proposed disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). 3.3 The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No.2 of 2002 dated 15.02.2002 and Circular No.4 of 2004 dated 13.05.2004. The Circular No.2/2002 provides that difference between subscription price and redemption price would be treated

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

40A(2)(b) Refer Annexure - 6 7. Reason for decline in G.P Ratio and N.P. Ratio We would like to bring attention to your good office, due to Covid-19 Pandemic the company sales were badly affected during 1st quarter of 2020-2021 and gradually started increasing from 3rd quarter onwards. During pandemic there was big disruption in Supply Chain