ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

x) of the Act of a particular sum [for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19], without having received or accrued or earned by the appellant is against the provisions of the Act and Article 265 of the Constitution which states that -'no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law' 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A) ought

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

x) of the Act of a particular sum [for AY 2017-18 & AY 2018-19], without having received or accrued or earned by the appellant is against the provisions of the Act and Article 265 of the Constitution which states that -'no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law' 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A) ought

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

56,741/- made to retired partners claimed by the assessee on account of diversion of income by over-riding title. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Sec. 40(ba), clauses(i) & (ii) of 40(b) allow deduction of expenditure only if remuneration is payable to any partner

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

56,741/- made to retired partners claimed by the assessee on account of diversion of income by over-riding title. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Sec. 40(ba), clauses(i) & (ii) of 40(b) allow deduction of expenditure only if remuneration is payable to any partner

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

56,741/- made to retired partners claimed by the assessee on account of diversion of income by over-riding title. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Sec. 40(ba), clauses(i) & (ii) of 40(b) allow deduction of expenditure only if remuneration is payable to any partner

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56,06,658 impounded laptop impounded laptop 2. Gross Receipts as per books of Gross Receipts as per books of Rs.3,22,02,272 Rs.5,13,18,170 accounts (according to the AO) accounts (according to the AO) 3. Differential Receipts Differential Receipts Rs.8,74,13,269 Rs.52,42,88,488 Rs.52,42,88,488 4. Profit Profit element element

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

56,06,658 impounded laptop impounded laptop 2. Gross Receipts as per books of Gross Receipts as per books of Rs.3,22,02,272 Rs.5,13,18,170 accounts (according to the AO) accounts (according to the AO) 3. Differential Receipts Differential Receipts Rs.8,74,13,269 Rs.52,42,88,488 Rs.52,42,88,488 4. Profit Profit element element

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund of the assessee under section 154.” 10. It has been made clear by the Hon’ble High Court that sub -section (2) does not ifso facto empower the AO to apply the method prescribed by Rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made

SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.512 &513 /Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 & 2011- 2012)

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund of the assessee under section 154.” 10. It has been made clear by the Hon’ble High Court that sub -section (2) does not ifso facto empower the AO to apply the method prescribed by Rules straightaway without considering whether the claim made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

x (37.017/10) ] as on 31.03.2020 with M/s MohanlalJewellers (P) Ltd and the source for which is unexplained. 9.2 Hence the peak credit of unaccounted transactions towards issue of gold jewellery of Rs. 1,23,76,930/- as on 31.03.2020 with Mis Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd is added to the total income as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

x (37.017/10) ] as on 31.03.2020 with M/s MohanlalJewellers (P) Ltd and the source for which is unexplained. 9.2 Hence the peak credit of unaccounted transactions towards issue of gold jewellery of Rs. 1,23,76,930/- as on 31.03.2020 with Mis Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd is added to the total income as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

147 of the Act as more fully\ncaptured in the detailed/ exhaustive written submissions filed, the impugned\norder passed by them should be considered as non est in law and ought to\nhave appreciated that the cryptic order passed by them would defy the\nprinciples laid down by the Calcutta High Court by explaining the process of\nadjudication, thereby vitiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nand Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

147 of the Act as more fully\ncaptured in the detailed/ exhaustive written submissions filed, the impugned\norder passed by them should be considered as non est in law and ought to\nhave appreciated that the cryptic order passed by them would defy the\nprinciples laid down by the Calcutta High Court by explaining the process of\nadjudication, thereby vitiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER , BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly

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

147 of the Act as more fully captured in the detailed/ exhaustive written submissions filed, the impugned order passed by them should be considered as non est in law and ought to ITA Nos.1302 to 1304/Chny/2023 (AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17) CO Nos.1 to 3/Chny/2024 (AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.D.N. Public Charitable Trust :: 4 :: have appreciated that

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

56,870/- and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs.31,35,846/-. Subsequently, the A.O has reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, but accepted the return of income at Rs.57,25,24,130/- without making any addition. The A.O had reopened the assessment on the following grounds: i. The assessee has claimed capital gain on sale of land

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

x. Accordingly, the taxable income got restored to the returned income of Rs.7,24,870/-. xi. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Department that in respect of the newly acquired asset, which formed the basis for the claim of deduction u/s.54F, the cost of land is Rs.1,02,00,000/- while the value as per the Stamp Valuation

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

reassessment proceedings and deduction u/s 54. The correct provision under which the deduction would be available to the assessee is Sec.54F and not Sec.54 since the assessee has parted with land and invested the same in residential properties. Therefore, the claim of the assessee would be ascertained at the threshold of provisions of Sec.54F. 6. We find that the original

SANJJAY SAUMYHA,SALEM vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.392/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. Sanjjay Saumyha Pcit बनाम/ 251 A, Omalur Main Road, Swarnapuri, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeyps-0117-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act. 3.2 The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the Appellant has submitted as and when the details called for and offered necessary explanations towards the claim made in the return of income. 3 .3 The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that while passing