BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

20 results for “capital gains”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi119Jaipur116Mumbai93Bangalore38Pune33Chandigarh30Chennai20Indore19Rajkot15Amritsar12Surat11Raipur10Cochin10Kolkata7Ahmedabad6Jodhpur5Hyderabad2SC2Karnataka1Nagpur1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Ranchi1Allahabad1Kerala1Visakhapatnam1Lucknow1

Key Topics

Section 153C46Addition to Income15Section 6914Section 13213Section 153A13Section 69B12Section 1112Section 143(3)9Section 689Reopening of Assessment

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 11BSection 133ASection 143(3)

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 (P) Ltd., [2013] 39 taxmann.com

7
Disallowance7
Survey u/s 133A6

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. THIYAGARAJAN RAVINDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2054/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2054/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Thiyagarajan Ravindran, No.53/54, 2Nd Lane, Central Circle 1(2), Vs. Chennai Madhavaram High Road (North), Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aaepr-1108-E] (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Shivanand K Kalakeri, CITFor Respondent: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 2(47)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

capital gains transactions, whereas he ought to offer the difference between the sale value and the cost of acquisition of the asset in the hands of the previous owner. This is the reason for the AO to make the addition under section 69B

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

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1237/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 153CSection 69

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

SURESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 114/10 (Ligh), Gandhi Road, V. Income Tax, West Tambaram, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 045. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagps-0396-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 69B

section 115BBE of the Act. The AO and the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating relevant facts assessed additional income offered towards excess stock as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act and levied tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to assess additional income offered

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

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

ITA 856/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, CA
Section 142ASection 144ASection 69Section 69C

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

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

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1236/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 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) 2013-14 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. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

For Appellant: Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

Capital Gain (STCG) for Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld AR advanced arguments and submitted that impugned addition of Rs.30 Lacs u/s 69 represent advance received through banking channels which could not be added u/s 69. This addition does not satisfy the ingredients of Sec.69 since this section is applicable for unexplained investments only. On the issue of assessment of STCG

PRAKASH CHAND HARISH KUMAR,CHENGALPET vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessee’s in ITA

ITA 409/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.409/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Mr. Prakash Chand Harish Kumar, The Acit, No.51, High Road, Chengalpet, Central Circle-3(3), Tamil Nadu-603 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aafpk 5543 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 12.08.2024
Section 133ASection 69B

gains of business or profession” or “under unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act”. The provisions of section 69B of the Act deals with, where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and the Assessing Officer finds that the amount expended on making such

SHANTHILAL KISHORE KUMAR ,CHENGALPET vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by both the assessee’s in ITA

ITA 410/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.409/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 V. Mr. Prakash Chand Harish Kumar, The Acit, No.51, High Road, Chengalpet, Central Circle-3(3), Tamil Nadu-603 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aafpk 5543 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 12.08.2024
Section 133ASection 69B

gains of business or profession” or “under unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act”. The provisions of section 69B of the Act deals with, where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and the Assessing Officer finds that the amount expended on making such

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 772/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 772/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023

For Appellant: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 111ASection 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

capital gains declared u/s. 111A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and expenses debited into profit and loss account for earning exempt income as per schedule BP of ITR is significantly lower when compared to investment made to earn exempt income. A notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, was issued

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

section 13(1) (c) of the Act" When the AD has concluded that he has to treat the cash refunds as withdrawals for the purpose of college expenses, merely because proof adduced for such expenses is 'treated as not genuine' by the AO, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion of violation of sec.13(1)(c), unless

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

section 13(1) (c) of the Act" When the AD has concluded that he has to treat the cash refunds as withdrawals for the purpose of college expenses, merely because proof adduced for such expenses is 'treated as not genuine' by the AO, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion of violation of sec.13(1)(c), unless

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

section 13(1) (c) of the Act" When the AD has concluded that he has to treat the cash refunds as withdrawals for the purpose of college expenses, merely because proof adduced for such expenses is 'treated as not genuine' by the AO, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion of violation of sec.13(1)(c), unless

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

section 13(1) (c) of the Act" When the AD has concluded that he has to treat the cash refunds as withdrawals for the purpose of college expenses, merely because proof adduced for such expenses is 'treated as not genuine' by the AO, cannot automatically lead to the conclusion of violation of sec.13(1)(c), unless

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 804/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 799/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 800/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 802/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 805/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 801/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain

M/S METAL IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 803/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.799 To 805/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 To 2020-21 V. M/S. Metal Impex, The Acit, The Lattice, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-1(1), No.20 Waddles Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. [Pan: Aamfm 4856 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(2)Section 68

capital drawings during the financial year. Therefore, I am satisfied that the above referred seized material seized from head office of Jain Metal group at the Lattice, No. 20, 4th floor, Waddles Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, seized vide ANN/RR/JMG/ED/S-4 and Annexure ANN/MS/JMG/LS/S1 In the case of M/s. Jain Metal Rolling Mills, M/s.Jain FGL Metal Industries, Shri. Kamlesh Jain, Shri. Shantilal Jain