MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

CRAFTSMAN AUTOMATION LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT,CC-2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.177/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Craftsman Automation Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of ‘Senthel Towers’, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, 1078, Avinashi Road, Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Aabcc2461K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaragahavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 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 30.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

69C of the Act without giving proper findings. Thus, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for quashing the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. PCIT. 5 I.T.A. No.177/Chny/21 6. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S HILL MAX EXPORT, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 742/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 39/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Hill Max Export, Tax, V. No. 149/1, Central Circle 2(1), Pollachi Main Road, Room No. B3, Ground Floor, Kattampatti, Investigation Building, Jakkarpalayam-Vaipollachi, Chennai – 34. Coimbatore – 642 202. [Pan:Aahfh-2574-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nanda Kumar, Cit Respondent/Cross Objector By : Shri. M. V. Prasad, Fca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024

69C of the Act is made for all these fouryears u/s 153C of the Act. satisfaction note dated 30thSeptember, 2015, recorded under Section 153C of the Act is alsoproduced before us which is placed at page no.152 and 153 ofthe Paper Book which clearly shows that the evidences anddocuments based on which the addition is made wereimpounded from the place

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

depreciation, salary, travel etc have been claimed. The Ld. Counsel Page - 5 - of 17 ITA No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: explained that the Ld. AO rejected the arguments that because it is the business of the assessee to rent or lease ware houses therefore income thereof needs to be of taxed as business income. Consequently the Ld. AO disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

depreciation, salary, travel etc have been claimed. The Ld. Counsel Page - 5 - of 17 ITA No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024 :- 6 -: explained that the Ld. AO rejected the arguments that because it is the business of the assessee to rent or lease ware houses therefore income thereof needs to be of taxed as business income. Consequently the Ld. AO disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TRICHY vs. R. GEETHA, PUDUKOTTAI

The appeal stands dismissed

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

Section 68 - 69C without appreciating the scheme of the Act, It is only where assessee found to be owner of investments, money and bullion or expenditure "Not Recorded" in the books could be added u/s 69, 69A & 69C respectively. In case of disclosed Balance Sheet, no such addition could be made on asset side. The Ld. AO has accepted

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

69C of the Act and of Rs. 90,000/- towards disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee took additional grounds challenging the legal issue of reopening proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO u/s 147 of the Act. 8.1 Ld. CIT(A) held against

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act.\n\n5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

depreciation could not have been claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred government grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order dated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

depreciation could not have\nbeen claimed in respect of assets acquired by DSL out of the deferred\ngovernment grant in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act.\n5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the common order\ndated 25th April 2014 allowed the Assessee's appeals for the AYs in question on\nthe

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

69C of the Act. The assessee is noted to have furn The assessee is noted to have furnished their response vide letter ished their response vide letter 8.4 dated 02-02-2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported data which

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

69C of the Act. The assessee is noted to have furn The assessee is noted to have furnished their response vide letter ished their response vide letter 8.4 dated 02-02-2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported data which

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

69C of the Act. The assessee is noted to have furn The assessee is noted to have furnished their response vide letter ished their response vide letter 8.4 dated 02-02-2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported 2023. The assessee had first explained that, the purported data which