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

68 could not be used for the reasons\nstated above. It is for this reason that the Assessing Officer\ninvoked Section 56(1).\n9.10 Section 56(1) cannot be invoked since for it to apply a\nreceipt should be income whereas share premia is capital in\nnature as held by the Bombay High Court in Vodafone India\nServices

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

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

SRI BALAGOPALAN JEWELLERYMART ,SOUTH AVANI MOOLA STREET, MADURAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIR 3(3) CHENNAI, INVESTIGATION BUILDING, CHENNAI

In the result, the captioned appeal is allowed for statistical\npurposes

119)\nAffidavits of the partner companies of the petitioner, confirming that the\nagricultural lands owned by them were made available to the petitioner for\nSA No. 141/Chny/2025 (Α.Υ.2018-19)\nITA No:3964/Chny/2025\n:: 6 ::\ncarrying on agricultural operations and that all income and expenditure\nrelating to such agricultural operations were accounted for only in the books of\nthe

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. RAMASUBBU MINNALKODI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the\nAct are attracted even in relation to the opening balances, where the assessee\n:-13-:\nITA. No: 1632/Chny/2025\nhas failed to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors in the assessment\nyear in which such balances are first reflected or claimed. The Id.DR further\nsubmitted that the reasoning adopted by the Id.CIT(A) that opening balances\ncannot

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

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