SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

cash credit u/s 68 and taxing under section 115BBE. 7. The counsel for the assessee contended that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and is not legally justified. He further contended that the additions made by the AO which has been sustained by the ld.CIT(A) are not arising out of any incriminating materials found

DCIT, SALEM vs. M/S. ERODE ANNAI SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD., ERODE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

cash credit of `20 lakhs against the unabsorbed depreciation of previous years. By raising this ground, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee admitted that `20 lakhs is the unexplained

M/S. ERODE ANNAI SPINNING MILLS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

cash credit of `20 lakhs against the unabsorbed depreciation of previous years. By raising this ground, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee admitted that `20 lakhs is the unexplained

LAKSHMI RAM SHARAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 5 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credit. 3.2 Addition of short-terms loans and interest thereon The assessee is stated to have received short-term loans in cash from various persons during the year. The same has been tabulated in para 4.1 of the assessment order. The loans were received from 12 parties and aggregated to Rs.27.27 Lacs. Upon verification, it was found that

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

depreciation Closing cash and bank balances Rs. 2,09,71,198 A2 = Addition to fixed assets which is explained by increase in capital As per para 6 of AO the addition to fixed assets is only Rs.1294.20 lakhs. It is submitted that the above cash flow proves that the appellant had adequate funds to meet the expenses and also make

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

unexplained income of assessee. On appeal, learned CIT(A) has restricted addition of ₹1,54,400/- on the basis of remand report issued by Assessing Officer, where Assessing Officer has accepted source of income for cash deposit of ₹1,60,600/-. 17. The learned AR for assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions towards cash deposit

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

cash sales regularly or that the cash sales shown on the date of\ndemonetization is inconsistent with the cash sales reported in earlier\nperiod(s) or that there is any unusual deviation in gross profit margin due\nto the impugned sales in dispute. From an analysis of the audited\nfinancials for the relevant FY 2016-17 and the past

MANIKANDAN SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ,THIRUMANGALAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Manikandan Subash Chandra V. Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Bose, Madurai – 625 002. New No. 70 (Old 131), Big Bazaar Street, Thirumangalam – 625 706 [Pan: Abcpm-6497-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Pratap, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

depreciation and taxes is Rs.9,53,900/-. The average sales per month comes to Rs.5,20,843/- and purchases to Rs.4,65,057/-. The average total sales/purchases from 01.04.2016 to 31.10.2016 works out to Rs.36,45,901/- & 32,55,399/- respectively. Thus, the available balance as on 01.11.2016 is Rs.3,90,502/- plus sales made from 01.11.2016 to 8.11.2016. Thus

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

Unexplained Cash Credit' as per the provision of Sec.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back to the total income of the assessee.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and assessment order, confirmed the action of the AO by observing in para

KRISHNASAMY BHUVANESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORPRATE WARD 4(2), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1528/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14 Krishnasamy Bhuvaneswari, Ito, 43/63, Rajamanai Thottam, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Kupanur, Mathampatty, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 010. [Pan:Ahypb-5938-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. M. K. Biju, C.I.T. - D.R. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

cash credit and disallow certain interest and depreciation apart from issuing notice u/s.148 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 by holding as under: To sum up, the Assessing Officer is directed to: (i) add Rs. 2,09,83,000/- as unexplained

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. JEEVAN TECHNOLOGIES INDIA P LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T.A No.1706/Chny/2019 :- 3 -: Act, is not justified. The Ld. CIT(A) by considering the explanation of the assessee deleted the addition made by the A.O. 3. On appeal before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submission which was made before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

credit\n:-3-:\nITA. No: 1632/Chny/2025\nbill for Rs.800/- as against the actual sale price of Rs.1,450/-. He further stated\nthat it was the regular practice of the assessee to issue bills for a lower value.\nIn her sworn statement recorded during the survey, the assessee admitted the\ntotal turnover for the relevant assessment year, as on the date

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. S. RAJENDRAN, CHITHARAL

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

unexplained cash credits\nwithout specific evidence to prove that the income is fictitious. Mere lack of detailed\nexpense records should not lead to the denial of agricultural income unless the AO can\nprove that the income is fabricated.\"\n49.\nThe Id.DR for the revenue supported the order of the AO and submitted that\nthe Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

credit and added as income\nof the Assessee under Section 68. It is tobe noted that the unexplained cash\ncredit of Rs.41,06,000/- is taxed @ 60% without set off of any loss or\ndeduction as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment of\nRs.41,06,000/- is confirmed.\n11.1 Heard both the parties. The assessee