ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

378/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim towards deduction u/s.54F made by the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition towards the unexplained cash credit of "83,303/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 68’’. 3. The Brief facts of the case the assessee is an individual deriving income from business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

4) weeks before framing of re-assessment order as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paints Limited v. DCIT & anr. (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) and also in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI reported in [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.), which fact we find from perusal of Page No.86

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

property matter as claimed by the\nassessee is not acceptable in the eyes of law. We find that the reconstitution of\npartnership deed has been made by altering the share of profit among the partners\nbased on the family arrangement, wherein all the partners are of one family. Hence,\nwe find that, this agreement is in substance a family arrangement

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

property developer. It had actually incurred Rs. 11,48,99,378/- towards the cost of construction of Akash Malli Project as on 31.03.2012 but in its books it has shown this expenditure :-11-: under the head closing stock at Rs. 5,95,18,483/- only. The assessee has admitted at the time of survey that it has suppressed the value

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

property, business or profession, and capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

property, business or profession, and capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

property, business or profession, and capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1863, 1864, 1855, 1856, 1857 & 1858/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Gunasekaran Mannar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 91, Kamaraj Street, Income Tax, Villupuram 605 602, Villupuram. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aacpg0230G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 24.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

property, business or profession, and capital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessee on 02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined the billing software "S.S. Retail" used by the assessee and found the difference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

378\n1,30,18,054\n7.5.6. Accordingly, the said credits of Rs.2,03,41,810/- categorized by the appellant as 'rental\nreceipts' can be bifurcated as under:\nTotal credits in bank account claimed as\nrental receipts/advances\nRs.2,03,41,810/-\nAmount received from M/s Janakiram Co-\nowners to be considered under the head\n'Income from House Property'\nRs.1

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

378 of PB-III Ltd. 3 Bodhtree 109.79% Functionally Different -Further, for AY 2007-08 the company has Consulting Ltd. undergone business re-structuring and expenses have been transferred (Seg.) to associate company.[Page 282-3 of PB-II]. 4 Celestial Labs 58.35% Functionally Different- Biotech company which has in-house R&D centre; Ltd. developed a drug design tool

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

GLOBAL CALCIUM PRIVATE LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.I.T.A. No. 1229/Chny/2018 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06

house property” and consequently disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) . The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal. 3. The AR submitted that the AO disallowed the claim of additional depreciation on the windmill

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1), , CHENNAI vs. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

378, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, / Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 079. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAFPJ-3255-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. Sr. DR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D. Anand, (Advocate)- Ld. AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-12-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11-01-2023 Date of Pronouncement आदेश