MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

69A made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 8. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has not furnished any of the documents / evidence in support of his claim before the lower authorities. Further the assessee has not proved with any evidence to show

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. VIJAY DAIRY AND FARM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSIRI , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 69A of the Act to treat the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess the difference in stock as unaccounted purchase / unaccounted excess stock. Accordingly it is considered that the addition made by the AO stock. Accordingly it is considered that the addition made by the AO stock. Accordingly

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales_Mas, treated as\nrepresenting \"actual sales

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 46.3 Applicability: This amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. 5. As regards to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital Gain on\nsale of immovable property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on\nsale of immovable property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69\n1,60,46,854\n2\nInterest

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1115/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 69A of the Act. 10. Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee purchased the property in the assessment year 2008-09 and sold the same in the very same 6 I.T.A. No.1115/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1899/Mds/14 assessment year. The assessee offered the profit on sale of the land under the head “short term capital gains

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1115/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 69A of the Act. 10. Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessee purchased the property in the assessment year 2008-09 and sold the same in the very same 6 I.T.A. No.1115/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.1899/Mds/14 assessment year. The assessee offered the profit on sale of the land under the head “short term capital gains

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

capital gains. The first appellate authority found that the land was classified as agricultural land and as per revenue record the land squarely fell within the definition of agricultural land and therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Upon further appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble High Court of Madras held

CHARLES MOPUR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD - 1 (1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1000/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Charles Mopur, The Income Tax Officer Old No.9, New No.27, Vs. (International Taxation), Lourdes Cottage, Railway Colony, Ward-I(1), Chennai. Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Akjpc-6627-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023

capital gains and Rs. 82,86,700/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act towards the total income

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales_Mas, treated as\nrepresenting \"actual sales

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections

GANAPATHY CHANDRASEKARAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

capital gains. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there was cash deposits during the year. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee calling for the source for cash deposits in his bank accounts. The assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that assessee was in the business of Rice Mill

PAZHANIVEL THANGARASU,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, CUDDALORE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the explanation along with evidences furnished by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.40,00,250/-. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider

MUTHUSAMY MADHANAGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. THE PCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 142/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Mr. Muthusamy Madhanagopal, The Principal Commissioner Of 2/12, Indhu Nagar, Vilankurichi, Vs. Income Tax-1, Coimbatore 641 035. Coimbatore. [Pan:Ahtpm0258Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore, Dated 25.02.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 7 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The Delay Of Seven Days In Filing Of The 2

section 69A of the Act and the Assessing Officer has wrongly reduced the 1/3 of 50C value of the property instead of reducing the LTCG worked out by the assessee. After working out the capital gains

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales_Mas, treated as 3 I.T.A. Nos.1863

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales_Mas, treated as 3 I.T.A. Nos.1863

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales_Mas, treated as 3 I.T.A. Nos.1863