INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

disallowance of\ntransportation expenses and bogus purchases amounting to Rs.\n3,02,02,100/- and Rs.4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the\naddition of unexplained money of Rs.39,22,000/- under section 69A

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

disallowance of\ntransportation expenses and bogus purchases amounting to Rs.\n3,02,02,100/- and Rs.4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the\naddition of unexplained money of Rs.39,22,000/- under section 69A

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

disallowance of\ntransportation expenses and bogus purchases amounting to Rs.\n3,02,02,100/- and Rs.4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the\naddition of unexplained money of Rs.39,22,000/- under section 69A

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

disallowance of\ntransportation expenses and bogus purchases amounting to Rs.\n3,02,02,100/- and Rs.4,43,24,430/- respectively under section 37, the\naddition of unexplained money of Rs.39,22,000/- under section 69A

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)

disallowed under section 69A of the Act which was repaid by PIL to the assessee and not accounted in the books

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)

disallowed under section 69A of the Act which was repaid by PIL to the assessee and not accounted in the books

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. VIJAY DAIRY AND FARM PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSIRI , TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 69A of the Act, (b) disallowance of disallowance of expenses incurred on freezer boxes supplied to their agents of expenses

SUMERMAL KANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

disallowing the same. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity and has merely made the addition without issuing a show-cause notice or a 2° hearing, (iv) The Learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate grounds raised in the Appeal. Cash already Recorded in Books - Addition_uls 69A Bad In Law: (v) Without Prejudice

GAUTHAM CHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1011/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Gautham Chand Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of No. 13, 3Rd Street, V. Income Tax, Balgota Villa, Central Circle 1(1), Sambier Street, Gandhi Salai, Chennai -600 034. Seven Wells, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Aahpg-0295-J] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1012/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sumermal Kantilal Jain, Assistant Commissioner Of 104/A6, Govindappa Naicken V. Income Tax, Street, George Town, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaopj-1866-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. Ca. Abhishek Murali, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023

disallowing the same. (iii) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has not provided any opportunity and has merely made the addition without issuing a show-cause notice or a 2° hearing, (iv) The Learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate grounds raised in the Appeal. Cash already Recorded in Books - Addition_uls 69A Bad In Law: (v) Without Prejudice

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

disallowed u/s.69C of the Act. In view of these arguments, he stated that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the AO. 4. We noted that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act have been brought into the statute book w.e.f. 01.04.2017 by the Finance Act, 2016 and a beneficial circular has been issued by CBDT

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

disallow the claim of gift. The Ld.CIT(A) had reasoned out that\nthe assessee's brother had given a letter stating the fact of the gift and that stands as\nan evidence to show that gifts are indeed made. In our view, this is acceptable. At any\nrate, we find that the AO never brought out any material to disprove

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

disallow the claim of gift. The Ld.CIT(A) had reasoned out that\nthe assessee's brother had given a letter stating the fact of the gift and that stands as\nan evidence to show that gifts are indeed made. In our view, this is acceptable. At any\nrate, we find that the AO never brought out any material to disprove

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

disallow the claim of gift. The Ld.CIT(A) had reasoned out that\nthe assessee's brother had given a letter stating the fact of the gift and that stands as\nan evidence to show that gifts are indeed made. In our view, this is acceptable. At any\nrate, we find that the AO never brought out any material to disprove

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:

69A. 8. The appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all the grounds at any time before or at the time of hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and carrying on the business of trading in pulses and grains, filed his return of income

GOPALSAMY SATHIYAN,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.582/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopalsamy Sathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 669/2, Kuttuputhur Main Road, Ward 2, Mohanur Oruvandur Post, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Dwbps4361A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanthkumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

disallowed under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash deposit and added to the total income of the assessee

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

69A does not apply to present transactions. 20. We have heard the rival contention and pursued the materials on record and gone through the orders of the authorities. The AO has invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act to make disallowance

SHRI DURGA DEVI MUNDHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1228/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Durga Devi Mundhra Ito बनाम Sri Vilas, 18/32, Mahalakshmi Street, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) / Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpd-1061-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The said disallowance is wrong both on law and on facts. As is evident two issues fall for our consideration i.e., (i) Addition u/s 69A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1115/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

disallowance of bad debts is dismissed as not pressed. 9. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of `31,07,20,000/- under Section 69A