MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

251(1)(a) provides the ld.CIT(A) :-19-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only, enhancement must also be confined

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

2) 12. For that the appellant objects to the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C.” :-3-: ITA. No: 3096/Chny/2019 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 19.10.2006, admitting total income of Rs. 1,84,740/-. The case has been

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

2. It is to be noted that certain loan accounts\nare still not closed during the impugned year, since these account balances are\nrunning accounts which can be observed from the respective ledgers accounts\nattached (papers book 5). Hence the Id.AR submitted that these amounts cannot\nbe made as addition by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year as unexplained credits

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

2. It is to be noted that certain loan accounts\nare still not closed during the impugned year, since these account balances are\nrunning accounts which can be observed from the respective ledgers accounts\nattached (papers book 5). Hence the Id.AR submitted that these amounts cannot\nbe made as addition by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year as unexplained credits

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ACIT, CC - I (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BALAJI HOTELS & ENTERPRISES LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) SCC 744 = (1991) 187 ITR 688. The second submission is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 157 Taxman 1. (A). In Jute Corporation of India Limited v. CIT, for the assessment year 1974-75 the appellant did not claim any deduction of its liability towards purchase

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

section 147 of the Act does not postulate conferment of power upon\nthe Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings upon a mere\nchange of opinion. It is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to prove that\nthere was a failure to disclose material facts necessary for the\nassessment for the issuance of notice beyond the period of four years

PANCHATCHARAM,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

2) Validity of reopening the assessment. The learned assessing officer ought to have verified the veracity of statement made by the appellant accepting LTCG for a specific value before investigation wing in view of the fact that the appellant has not even completed primary education before proceeding to issue notice under section 148, which best can be termed suspicion

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

section 69 of the Act collapses.\nIn the absence of any material to demonstrate that the impugned amounts\nrepresented unexplained investments made during the year under consideration,\nthe addition made by the AO is liable to be deleted in toto. The Id. AR accordingly\nprayed that not only the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A) be upheld, but also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in Appeal as he thinks fit. as he thinks

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERAALS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

251 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, is entitled to make such enquiry as he thinks fit and may pass such other order in Appeal as he thinks fit. as he thinks

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

251/-\n5,32,10,303/-\n15,96,75,209/-\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded\ntherein, but it contested

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2\nThough the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/-\n2021-22\n5,32,10,303/-\n2022-23\n15,96,75,209/-\nTOTAL\n31,13,06,763/-\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

251/- |\n| 5,32,10,303/- |\n| 15,96,75,209/- |\n| 31,13,06,763/- |\n\n8.2 Though the assessee in the return(s) of income filed in response to\nnotices u/s 148 of the Act is found to have, out of caution, admitted to\n15% of the bogus purchases by way of the profit element embedded\ntherein