SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

108 (SC). Even earlier\nthe hon'ble Delhi High Court had held in PCIT v Vikas Telecom Ltd\n[2022] 135 taxmann.com 362 (Delhi) had held that post-search\nenquiries cannot be the basis of\nassessments under Section 153A/153C. Therefore, the reliance\nplaced by the AO on the TP orders passed after the search\ncannot be countenanced.\n9.7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SUBBIAH NADAR JEGATHEESAN, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

Section 68 of the Act, the initial onus lies upon the assessee to offer an explanation regarding the nature and source of any credit found in the books of accounts. In the present case, the assessee has discharged this burden by stating that the sum in question represents agricultural income derived from self-owned agricultural land and by furnishing

JAYAKUMAR THOMAS JAYARAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI

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

68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to\nhave perused the copy of the agreement for sale and found that the\nassessee was the owner of 5.73 acres of land, and the right of usage of\nland was transferred to Shri S. Arunkumar for a total consideration of\n₹5.25 Crs. And an amount

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:3130/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 - 2016 M/S. Quintegra Solutions Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Wescare Towers, Vs. Income Tax, No.16, Cenotaph Road, Corporate Circle – 5(2), Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. 121 / 108 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Pan : Aaacs 7016B Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjunraj, C.A. For Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022

108 M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, PAN : AAACS 7016B Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश

MR.MOHAMED MEERA WAHITHA,SIVAGANGAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , KARAIKUDI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1955/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mohamed Meera Wahitha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 13-3/12-H, Bungalow Oorani Street, Income Tax, Puduvayal, Karaikudi Taluk, Circle 1, Sivagangai 630 108. Karaikudi. [Pan:Aajpw6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

108. Karaikudi. [PAN:AAJPW6483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri M.K. Rangasamy, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed

P.K.C.PRABHU,MADURAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, MADURAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 73 is not applicable for the reason the income from principal business is from Shiva Textiles (Rs.82,23,449) and Angayarkanni investments (Rs.1,38,849/-) totaling Rs.83,68,298/- against loss of Rs.45,11,108

ITO, CHENNAI vs. ALFA INVESTMENTS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

108,35,05,000/- as an unexplained credit u/s. 68, hence the addition made in the hands of the firm is unwarranted and therefore, the CIT(A) deleted the addition. She further held that since the capital was introduced in the course of earlier two financial years, i.e., in financial years 2009-10 and 2010-11, the AO could only

KETAN DINESHCHANDRA MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ITONCR 11(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2318/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Ketan Dineshchandra Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, 143, Broadway, Parrys, V. Non Corporate Ward 11(3), Chennai - 600 108. Chennai - 600 006. Pan : Aafpm 5926 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

108. Chennai - 600 006. PAN : AAFPM 5926 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे / Respondent by : Shri V.M. Mahidar, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal

M/S OVERSEAS LEATHERS,RANIPET vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [PAN: AAAFO-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023 आदेश

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2.4, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. RISHI ENTERPRISES, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

68,27,540/- in its return of income as a\nprudential measure to cover any possible discrepancies.\n55. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO's conclusion was\nbased on mere presumption and surmise, without any substantive material to\nestablish diversion of funds for non-business purposes, and accordingly deleted\nthe addition. Being aggrieved

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. HARIWAY LINES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

68,27,540/- in its return of income as a\nprudential measure to cover any possible discrepancies.\n56. In view of the above, the Ld.CIT(A) held that the AO's conclusion was\nbased on mere presumption and surmise, without any substantive material to\nestablish diversion of funds for non-business purposes, and accordingly deleted\nthe addition. Being aggrieved

SAMIAPPAN ,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:487/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Samiappan, Income Tax Officer, 37/31, Kalaimagal Street, Vs. Ward- 1(1), Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 007. Salem – 636 004. [Pan:Cdips-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

section 68 of the Act which amount represents cash deposits made by the assessee in Canara bank during the financial year 2017-18. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the lower authorities are not justified in accepting the cashbook for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 wherein substantial cash balance is available