ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Section under | | | | order of | assessment | which | | | | CIT(A) | order | assessment order | | | | | | was passed | 1 | 1872/Chny/2025 | 2013-14 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 2 | 1873/Chny/2025 | 2014-15 | 07.04.2025 | 05.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 3 | 1875/Chny/2025 | 2015-16 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 4 | 1877/Chny/2025 | 2016-17 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A r.w.s 143(3) | 5 | 1878/Chny/2025 | 2017-18 | 09.04.2025 | 06.05.2021 | 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. S K T STUDIOS, CHENNAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

disallowing the expenditure claimed on estimation basis without there being any evidences, more particularly when the books of accounts are subjected to audit under section 44AB of the Act. As evident in the assessment order, the AO has not rejected the books of accounts in terms of section 145(3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

Section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the overall profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly profit of the assessee at 10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) 2014-15 and 2015 15 and 2015-16 are hereby rejected. Thus, having rejected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) Accordingly, the books of accounts of the Appellant Firm for the FY(s) 2014-15 and 2015 15 and 2015-16 are hereby rejected. Thus, having rejected

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

3,40,000/- per acre. It was also seen that the company has paid Rs. 14,70,655/- as cash to Sri K Srinivasan, While raising a specific question in this aspect Shri D. Kabilan, vide his sworn statement in answer 6 has stated that the amount of Rs.14.70.655/- is the difference between the actual sale consideration agreed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 92 of the Act. 5.4.1 The DRP in the aforesaid order has held that “In all the international financial transactions, the rate of interest is to be considered at LIBOR rates and not at the rates at which the banks are lending / charging in India. Therefore, the assessee's claim of 6% interest is not adequate / comparable. Further

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AADHITYA FINCORP PVT LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

145(3) of the Act, nor has any corroborative evidence been brought on record to substantiate the disallowance. 6.5.6 There are a plethora of decisions/ judgements from various appellate forums wherein its has been consistently held that ad-hoc disallowances without identifying specific defects in the books or establishing that expenses were unsubstantiated or non-business in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s ingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s ingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 250 and 251 of the Act, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit 250 and 251 of the Act, is entitled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BALA MURUGAN COMPANY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 145(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s ingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s ingly, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred u/s 250 and 251 of the Act, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit 250 and 251 of the Act, is entitled