KARTHICK NATARAJAN,MADURAI vs. DCIT, INTNL TAXN CIRCLE, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013. As on 01.04.2016 the financial year in which the subject seizures occurred Section 155BBE provided for 30% tax on income referred to in Sections 68

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.V.D.MURALI, CHETTUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.84/Mds/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011)

115/- ------------ ---------------- Closing Credit Balance 66,78,081 I.T.A.No.84/Mds/2015 :- 9 -: -------------- The year-wise details of important assets, Capital accounts of the assessee in his individual capacity, for various financial years are as under:- For the Financial years ending on Particulars 31.03.09 31.03.08 31.03.07 31.03.06 31.03.05 Capital account

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

section 37 of the Act. ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 & 2015-16) Varadappan Natarajan/ V. Natarajan (Individual) :: 3 :: 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the First appellate authority is not justified sustaining the action of the AO in assessing a sum of Rs.10,65,970 offered under the head other sources as income u/s 68

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

section 37 of the Act. ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 & 2015-16) Varadappan Natarajan/ V. Natarajan (Individual) :: 3 :: 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the First appellate authority is not justified sustaining the action of the AO in assessing a sum of Rs.10,65,970 offered under the head other sources as income u/s 68

SRI VIGNESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

115 BBC of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that having impliedly accepted the argument on the error in interpolating the provisions in section 68

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

115 JB of the\nAct.\"\n9.2 Following the above, the interest of ₹5,42,483/- paid for belated\ndeposit of TDS is allowed as deduction while assessing book profit u/s\n115JB of the Act. This ground is accordingly allowed.\nITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)\nM/s. The India Cements Ltd.\n:: 25 ::\n10. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee is against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

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

Section 68 even if shares were issued at excess premium. The assessee also quoted the Delhi High Court decision in CIT v Steller Investments Ltd (1991) 192 ITR 287 (upheld by the Supreme Court in [2001] 115

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

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, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, 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

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

Section 68 even if shares were issued\nat excess premium. The assessee also quoted the Delhi\nHigh Court decision in CIT v Steller Investments Ltd (1991)\n192 ITR 287 (upheld by the Supreme Court in [2001] 115

IRIS REALTY LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4129/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 142/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 4129/Chny/2025] M/S. Iris Realty Llp, The Deputy Commissioner (Successor To Iris Realty Vs. Of Income Tax, Pvt.Ltd.,) Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), 11, Kakani Towers, Chennai. 15, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aagfi 9722F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026

section 68 lies squarely on the assessee. Mere receipt through banking channels or production of partial salary evidence is insufficient. The assessee has not discharged this burden. The Assessing Officer's satisfaction that the explanation offered was unsatisfactory is, therefore, well founded. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 27,00,000 u/s 68 representing unexplained share-capital is confirmed

D.RAMADEVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO BUSINESS WARD II(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2624/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Ms. D. Rama Devi, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 44/1, Third Street Vgp Layout, Vs. Business Ward Ii(3), Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaspr9611A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nagaprasad, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2(I/C), Chennai Dated 06.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Addition Towards Unexplained Cash Credit Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

115. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AASPR9611A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri V. Nagaprasad, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Guru Bashyam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 27.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed

M/S.STANDARD FIREWORKS P LTD ,SIVAKASI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal stand allowed

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

115 BBE of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 6. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69A of the Act had no application to the facts of the case and ought to have appreciated that non consideration of the evidences in the form

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

115-O; or ii. the second proviso to section 194B, then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid. 5.2 However, section 273B of the Act provides that in case the assessee proves that there was some

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

115 JB. However, this issue was a subject matter before the Special Bench, ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.502/Del/2012 . Para 6.22 of the special bench decision in the above is extracted as under:- “6.22 In view of above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in favour of assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

115 JB. However, this issue was a subject matter before the Special Bench, ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.502/Del/2012 . Para 6.22 of the special bench decision in the above is extracted as under:- “6.22 In view of above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in favour of assessee

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

115 JB. However, this issue was a subject matter before the Special Bench, ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.502/Del/2012 . Para 6.22 of the special bench decision in the above is extracted as under:- “6.22 In view of above discussion, we answer the question referred to us in favour of assessee