DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before the end of the relevant previous year.\n(2) No penalty under

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

69C or section 69D\nto the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of\nincome furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the\nprovisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on\nor before the end of the relevant previous year.\n(2) No penalty under

GAURAV KUMAR GOENKA,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3375/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Gaurav Kumar Goenka, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 14/3B, 3F-2, 1St Street, Income Tax, East Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahrpk3539J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: “1. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Presumption Of Enhancement Of Income In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Act Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification & Further Ought To Have Appreciated That The Restriction Of The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Would Not Amount To Enhancement Within The Ambit Of Section 250 Of The Act. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That In Any Event The Levy Of 2

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the presumption of enhancement of income in terms of Section 250 of the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and further ought to have appreciated that the restriction of the addition made by the Assessing Officer would not amount to enhancement within the ambit of Section

TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 69C of the Act.. 6.1 Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee had made submission that it had neither incurred such cash expenditure nor made such cash payment to sub-contractors. However the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld.AO by observing as under:- While dealing with similar issue for the A.Y.2011-12 in ITA No. 196/16-17 dated

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. TVH ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 69C of the Act.. 6.1 Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee had made submission that it had neither incurred such cash expenditure nor made such cash payment to sub-contractors. However the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld.AO by observing as under:- While dealing with similar issue for the A.Y.2011-12 in ITA No. 196/16-17 dated

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4. Quite clearly, Ld. AO has made addition of credit receipt in bank account of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to adduce supporting documents. The amount thus received by the assessee has been treated as unexplained investment u/s

SARANGABANI KIRUBAGARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© is initiated separately. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 4. Quite clearly, Ld. AO has made addition of credit receipt in bank account of the assessee on the ground that the assessee failed to adduce supporting documents. The amount thus received by the assessee has been treated as unexplained investment u/s

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