ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SARDARMAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

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

172 b) As per physical inventorization 13240.600 210.750 163 2 Sardarmal Kothari and family members a) As per wealth tax return 3920.85 37.5 62 3 Shanthilal Kothari & family members a) As per wealth tax return 9975.700 10.50 107 b) As per physical inventorization 7071.800 170.090 113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. KEWALCHAND KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

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

172 b) As per physical inventorization 13240.600 210.750 163 2 Sardarmal Kothari and family members a) As per wealth tax return 3920.85 37.5 62 3 Shanthilal Kothari & family members a) As per wealth tax return 9975.700 10.50 107 b) As per physical inventorization 7071.800 170.090 113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return

ACIT CENTRLA CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. SHANTILAL KOTHARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s petition as filed u/r 27 stand dismissed

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

172 b) As per physical inventorization 13240.600 210.750 163 2 Sardarmal Kothari and family members a) As per wealth tax return 3920.85 37.5 62 3 Shanthilal Kothari & family members a) As per wealth tax return 9975.700 10.50 107 b) As per physical inventorization 7071.800 170.090 113 4 Kewalchand Kothari a) As per wealth tax return

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

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4. Since the facts and circumstances are identical, we will take the facts from assessment year 2011-12, which is the lead year. 5. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee’s side and it seems that the company is under liquidation and despite service of notice on the official liquidator, nobody is coming forward and hence, these

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4. Since the facts and circumstances are identical, we will take the facts from assessment year 2011-12, which is the lead year. 5. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee’s side and it seems that the company is under liquidation and despite service of notice on the official liquidator, nobody is coming forward and hence, these

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4. Since the facts and circumstances are identical, we will take the facts from assessment year 2011-12, which is the lead year. 5. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee’s side and it seems that the company is under liquidation and despite service of notice on the official liquidator, nobody is coming forward and hence, these

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4. Since the facts and circumstances are identical, we will take the facts from assessment year 2011-12, which is the lead year. 5. Despite service of notice, none is present from assessee’s side and it seems that the company is under liquidation and despite service of notice on the official liquidator, nobody is coming forward and hence, these

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

penalties were levied \naccordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to \n\n19\n\nbe excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, \ndirected Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the \nassessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and \naccordingly, the stand

TH 130 M/S BHARATHIYAR PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 194C of the Act in respect of contract payment. However, the same was not deducted during the year under consideration. However, subsequently, the assessee deducted and paid `30,272/- on 29.08.2013. The balance amount of `18,476/- along with interest of `33,636/- was paid on 12.03.2014. These factual aspects are not in dispute. On identical circumstances, Delhi High

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

penalties were levied accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to be excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, directed Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the assessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and accordingly, the stand of Ld. AO was confirmed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

penalties were levied accordingly. The Ld. CIT(A) held that this quantity could be construed to be excess quantity of rough stone & malaimann and accordingly, directed Ld. AO to re-work the undisclosed sales in the hands of the assessee. No order was passed in the case of Shri B Kubendran and accordingly, the stand of Ld. AO was confirmed

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the additions made to the tune of Rs.45,91,25,185/- by way of enhancement to the income returned. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are therefore, initiated on both counts viz., concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

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

u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 327 days in both the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition as accompanied by affidavit of the authorized signatory of the assessee company. It has been submitted that Lebara group went through restructuring

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

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

u/s 143(3) for AY 2013-14. 2. The Registry has noted delay of 327 days in both the appeals, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition as accompanied by affidavit of the authorized signatory of the assessee company. It has been submitted that Lebara group went through restructuring

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

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