ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

depreciation on bogus steel purchases and capitalization of foreign exchange fluctuation. 69. We have heard Ld. Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on bogus purchase. 23. As per information received from the O/o DDIT (Inv.), Pune, wherein, it was stated that

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

depreciation on bogus purchase. 23. As per information received from the O/o DDIT (Inv.), Pune, wherein, it was stated that

M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE BANK OF MADURA LTD.),CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1589/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1996-97

bogus depreciation. The Ld.counsel further submitted that the assessee claimed for depreciation to the extent of `17,27,16,480/- being 50% depreciation on the asset which was purchased

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on bogus purchase of steel. The assessee could not produce purchase bills before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on bogus purchase of steel. The assessee could not produce purchase bills before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(Appeals

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

bogus purchases introduced in books of accounts or these purchases are paid in cash out of the undisclosed income of the assessee which are not recorded in books of accounts of the assessee. The AO had observed that in some cases old purchases are outstanding for more than a year and there are no transactions by assessee with these milk

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus expenditure. We refer to ITA Nos.2280-83 /2018 :- 44 -: the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (2018) 94 taxmann.com 324 which was confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal the SLP in PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia [2018] 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC). Accordingly, we do not find any reason

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARASIMHULU GALI MUNUSAMI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.452/Mds/2017 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

bogus claim of Form 26AS, depreciation and sundry creditors. 2.3 The Ld CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the details of income and depreciation and sundry creditors and accepted for disallowance which is a clear indication of furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 2.4 The Ld CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , MADURAI vs. DR.S. GURUSHANKAR,, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed in terms of our order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Depreciation 11,30,81,548 4.93 5,36,79,080 8.51 15 Ins. premium paid 23,05,302 0.10 3,40,401 0.05 16 Profit 14,04,25,993 6.13 13,23,09,854 20.96 17 Medical equipment 181,92,69,391 79.37 3,97,68,459 6.30 On the basis of above tabulation, it was observed

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , MADURAI vs. DR.S. GURUSHANKAR,, MADURAI

Appeals stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed in terms of our order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Depreciation 11,30,81,548 4.93 5,36,79,080 8.51 15 Ins. premium paid 23,05,302 0.10 3,40,401 0.05 16 Profit 14,04,25,993 6.13 13,23,09,854 20.96 17 Medical equipment 181,92,69,391 79.37 3,97,68,459 6.30 On the basis of above tabulation, it was observed

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

bogus, then as a corollary, at the time of search, the\nphysical inventory ought to have been higher than the closing inventory\nas per books, which was not the case and instead the inventory physically\nfound and as per books stood fully reconciled. The assessee further\nsubmitted that even the inventory details, purchases and sales found in\nthe books