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

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 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

119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. He pointed out that the information was received from the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 49 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells investigation wing of the department at Calcutta regarding shell companies which had given accommodation entries for share premium

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

119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. He pointed out that the information was received from the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 49 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells investigation wing of the department at Calcutta regarding shell companies which had given accommodation entries for share premium

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

119 (Gujarat), the Hon'ble High Court observed/held as under:- “In reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. He pointed out that the information was received from the ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 49 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells investigation wing of the department at Calcutta regarding shell companies which had given accommodation entries for share premium

SUBBUNADAR CHANDRASEKAR @ S.C.SEKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical ...

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.363 & 364/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Subbunadar Chandrasekar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of @ S.C. Sekar, No. 19, Thambusamy Income Tax, Company Circle Vi(3), Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 121, Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaepc4430C] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Both Dated 15.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011- 12 & 2012-13. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not produced any evidence to prove the credit worthiness of both his wife as well as his mother and he has also not been able to prove the genuineness of the so-called cash gifts received and confirmed the order

SUBBUNADAR CHANDRASEKAR @ S.C.SEKAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical ...

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.363 & 364/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Shri Subbunadar Chandrasekar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of @ S.C. Sekar, No. 19, Thambusamy Income Tax, Company Circle Vi(3), Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. 121, Nungambakkam High Road, [Pan:Aaepc4430C] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Both Dated 15.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011- 12 & 2012-13. Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not produced any evidence to prove the credit worthiness of both his wife as well as his mother and he has also not been able to prove the genuineness of the so-called cash gifts received and confirmed the order

T1461 KOOTHANALLUR PACB LTD.,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2195/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2195/Chny/2025] T1461 Koothanallur Pacb Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By Its Secretary Mr. T. Ward 1, Singaravelu, No. 27, Big Nazaar Street, Thiruvarur. Koothanallur Post, Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur 614 101. [Pan:Aacat6581C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Paarkavi, Advocate For Shri J. Ashok, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2

68,66,447/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with delay in filing the appeal. 3 I.T.A. No.2195/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 73/Chny/25 Since the ld. CIT(A) has not satisfied with the reasons stated by the assessee for belated filing of appeal, dismissed the appeal filed

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

Sections 147/148 of the Act are satisfied. It is the appellant's case that the aforesaid conditions are not satisfied inasmuch as in the absence of the Assessing Officer having the original return of income available it would not be possible for him to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This issue

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

119; or 3 ITA No. 2644/Del/2016Gurvinder Singh Suri (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deniel Merchants

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

119; or 3 ITA No. 2644/Del/2016Gurvinder Singh Suri (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deniel Merchants

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

119; or 3 ITA No. 2644/Del/2016Gurvinder Singh Suri (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deniel Merchants

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

119; or 3 ITA No. 2644/Del/2016Gurvinder Singh Suri :-11-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2022 (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

119; or 3 ITA No. 2644/Del/2016Gurvinder Singh Suri (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deniel Merchants

M/S SUN DIRECT TV PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , NFAC , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 861/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan:Aaics7671L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 24.11.2015 Admitting Total Loss At ₹.123,55,22,939/-. Subsequently, The Return Was 2

119,68,88,305/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. After following due procedure, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section

NATESAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

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

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.] 54[Explanation 3.-For the purposes of this section, “Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as assigned