THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPOLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

THE GOVT. TELE COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-11(1),, CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

penalty should have been levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for denial of deduction claimed under section 801B(10) of the Act. Secondly, the assessing officer is not correct in making a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 254

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

254 held the same view. In this case it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

254 held the same view. In this case it was held that it cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct. Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors, the genuineness of the transactions, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-à-vis the transactions which he had with

KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might justify, which could include an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment. Directing fresh assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot, therefore, be said that

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

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 , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune

DCIT , CHENNAI vs. M/S BRITISH AGRO PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2017-18 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 969 & 970/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. British Agro Products Income Tax, V. (India) Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle -1(1), No. 9, State Bank Officers Chennai – 600 034. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aafcb-8238-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Rajan, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 80JJA of the Act. 16.4. The order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Blue Mountain vs. ITO (1985) 14 ITD 254 (Bang.), does not discuss the issue in question and hence not relevant. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Malhotra Mukesh Satpal (2008) 115 ITD 467 (Pune

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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT

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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT

L KARUPPUSAMY,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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P P ENTERPRISES, BENGALURU

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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT

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

254 (SC); • Gurvinder Singh Duggal v. ACIT [2024] 6 TMI 336 (ITAT Delhi); • S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 1 TMI 1570 (ITAT Chandigarh); • ZTA Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT [2025] 10 TMI 143 (ITAT Delhi); • Umesh Sadashiv Thakre v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 951 (ITAT Nagpur); • YRCE Educare Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 8 TMI 1363 (ITAT