PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [PAN: AHHPP 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate IJथ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [PAN: AHHPP 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate IJथ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid

PRAKASHCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [PAN: AHHPP 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent by Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, CIT सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 : आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, J.M: This is an appeal preferred

PARK TRUST,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 13(3)(c). The A.O\nhas also disallowed interest of Rs. 1,40,95,279/- @ 12% of the sum\nadvanced to M/s. Park ED Trust of Rs. 4,01,71,568/-, Park Hospital\nLtd. Rs.7,18,36,076/- and VP Trust Rs. 54,53,018/- on the ground that\nthe assessee trust is paying heavy interest on unsecured loans

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AKZPP-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. ARs " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member

SEOYON E-HWA SUMMIT AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

u/s 143(3) passed by the AO dated 05.02.2013, the AO didn’t record any satisfaction about levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, which was challenged by the assessee before Ld CIT(A) & finally before this Tribunal; and the Tribunal vide order dated 18.09.2018 was pleased to confirm the action of the AO (i) disallowing Rs.10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

112) (Del HC) − CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612) (Del HC) − PCIT v. R.L. Allied Industries (ITA No.370/2015) (Del HC) − CIT v. Gopi Apartments (365 ITR 411) (All.HC) ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 5 :: 5. Per contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue countered the assessee’s contention by relying on the amendment

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

M/S. LALITHA JEWELLERY MART LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

u/s 131 of the Act, in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the , in our view, the same cannot be used against the assessee. As rightly pointed out by ointed out by Ld. AR, in our view, the assessee is R, in our view, the assessee is being

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

112) (Del HC)\nCIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd. (380 ITR 612) (Del HC)\nPCIT v. R.L. Allied Industries (ITA No.370/2015) (Del HC)\nCIT v. Gopi Apartments (365 ITR 411) (All.HC)\nITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nBondalapati Shivaji Rao\n:: 5 ::\n5.\nPer contra, the Ld. CIT, DR appearing for the Revenue countered\nthe assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

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

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

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

penalty u/s 271D/271E of the Income -tax Act, 1961. Further,\nsource of repayment of cash loan along with interest needed verification.\nAccordingly, a common satisfaction note was recorded by the Assessing\nOfficer in this regard that the above seized material pertains to the\nassessee, other than the person referred to in section 153A of the Act in the\ngroup case

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the\ncase of M/s Chettinadu Lignite Transport Service Private Limited, at the above\nmentioned address. The sworn statement was deposed before, Shri. S.\nBharathi, IRS, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2,\nCoimbatore.\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024\n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

u/s 131 of the Act and his statement \nwas recorded on 26.07.2021. In this statement, he was particularly \ninterrogated regarding the impugned notings which he had originally \nalleged to relate to ‘Bannari Amman Group’ / ‘Bannari Amman Sugars’ / \n‘Bannari Amman Educational Trust’ and he was required to specifically \n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024

M/S. P.P. ENTERPRISES,BENGALURU vs. ACIT< CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

penalty ought to be levied. From the language of the object "that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again", it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word "again" in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

penalty ought to be levied. From the language of the object "that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again", it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word "again" in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions

P. PALANISAMY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17

penalty ought to be levied. From the language of the object "that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again", it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word "again" in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions