N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

section 40A(3) of the Act applies. Accordingly, he made disallowance of Rs.5,65,03,729/-, whereas in final assessment order, it is added as Rs,5

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I,, ERODE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is totally\nunwarranted, given that the prices of Palm Oil adopted by the Appellant\nare well in tandem with the then prevailing Fair Market Value as per the\nAnnual Report published by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food &\nPublic Distribution.\n8. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in upholding an erroneous order of\nthe

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: 6.1 It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2011-12. Particularly, the assessee-company had shown bulk purchases from

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: 6.1 It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2011-12. Particularly, the assessee-company had shown bulk purchases from

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2150, 2151 & 2152/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 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) 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 Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 16.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 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 The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection.

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: 6.1 It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2011-12. Particularly, the assessee-company had shown bulk purchases from

SRI MAHARAJA REFINERIES,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is totally\nunwarranted, given that the prices of Palm Oil adopted by the Appellant\nare well in tandem with the then prevailing Fair Market Value as per the\nAnnual Report published by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food &\nPublic Distribution.\n8. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in upholding an erroneous order of\nthe

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

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Particularly, the assessee

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

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Particularly, the assessee

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

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Particularly, the assessee

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

Disallowance of expenditure violating the provisions of Section 40A(3) and bogus purchase made by the company: It was found during the course of search operation that M/s. VVD and Sons (P)Ltd. had claimed to have purchased copra from various traders in Kerala from the financial year: 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Particularly, the assessee

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

GOLD AK,TENKASI vs. ITO 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

section 40A (3)warranting disallowance of entire amount. The AO is directed to disallow cash payment made during the year of Rs 10,17,517/- u/s 40A (3) of IT Act. 7.3.10 Therefore, addition made on account of Unaccounted sales' Rs 16,32,616/-is to be restricted to the extent of Gross Profit on unaccounted sales of unaccounted purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2627/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Income Tax, Vs. 9, Cathedral Road, Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai - 600 086. Chennai Pan: Aaacc 3000F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026

5 -: section 43B of the Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court reads as follows:- 16. Section 40A adumbrates those categories of expenses/payments that are not deductible under certain circumstances. Sub-section (1) to Section 40A contains a categoric, non-obstante declaration to the effect that the provisions of Section 40A shall have effect, notwithstanding anything

SIVAKARTHIKEYAN TRANSPORTS,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 KARUR, KARUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakarthikeyan Transports, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Pasuapthypuram, Vs. Ward-2, Karur – 639001. Karur. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaias 3396N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054458891(1), Dated 19.07.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: (A) The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Probabilities & Evidence Of Facts Put Forth Before It & Also Contrary To Settled Principles With Regard To The Law On Taxation. :- 2 -:

5. The Ld.AR argued that both the lower authorities have erred in passing the order by disallowing these expenditure as violation of section 40A