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

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

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

UMA MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

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

69D cannot be subjected to the amended rigours of section 115BBE, including the enhanced rate of tax and the disallowance

B SARAVANAN,TRICHY vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Ble

disallowance ought not to have been made, :: 2 :: 3. In 63 TTJ 657 and 2009 TIOL 442, the Madras Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Madras High Court respectively have held that the Section is inapplicable, when genuine payment is made to identifiable parties out of disclosed sources, 4. The terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute according

SARANGABANI KIRUBAGARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), 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.1236/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms.T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act On 31-03-2022. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.30 Lacs & Assessment Of Short- Term Capital Gain (Stcg) For Rs.12.19 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Impugned Addition Of Rs.30 Lacs U/S 69 Represent Advance Received Through

disallowed. The Ld. CIT-DR, on the other hand, filed written submissions and submitted that the quoting of wrong section would not vitiate the addition made by Ld. AO as held in various judicial decisions. The copies of the same has been placed on record. The assessment of STCG was also justified. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal

M/S OVERSEAS LEATHERS,RANIPET vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

69D-Amount borrowed or repaid on hundi which have been enacted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 from time to time to bring to tax the undisclosed income either as undisclosed income or the same found during the course of investigation either during the Survey under section 133A or the search operation under Section 132 of the Act or otherwise

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), 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.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

disallow the same is the allegation that the assessee is not able to show the carrying out of agricultural activities on the said land. We are of the considered opinion that as long as the land is classified as agricultural land and the same is sold as such then in such a case, the purpose for which the purchaser would