APOLLO PHARMACIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 Apollo Pharmacies Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 19, Bishop Gardens, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aapca-5954-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

68,830/-. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by CPC on 14.12.2021 and accepted total income declared by the assessee, with a demand notice of Rs. 5,78,43,140/-, towards interest payable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Thereafter

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

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

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

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.

20,000/- was added to the income as unexplained cash credits under 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

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.

20,000/- was added to the income as unexplained cash credits under 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

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

20 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 4.2 We find that in the aforesaid order in the case of the assessee itself for ay 2011-12, the Tribunal has deliberated upon identical issue and considering the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goel 197 Taxmann 375 (Del) and arguments from both sides including

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

20 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 4.2 We find that in the aforesaid order in the case of the assessee itself for ay 2011-12, the Tribunal has deliberated upon identical issue and considering the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goel 197 Taxmann 375 (Del) and arguments from both sides including

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

20 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 4.2 We find that in the aforesaid order in the case of the assessee itself for ay 2011-12, the Tribunal has deliberated upon identical issue and considering the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Goel 197 Taxmann 375 (Del) and arguments from both sides including

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.

68/[2013] 35 taxmann.com 443 has held that mere participation by a party in proceedings without jurisdiction will not vest/confer jurisdiction on the authority. Reason to issue notice. Thus this lack of satisfaction of jurisdictional fact can never confer jurisdiction and an objection to it can be raised at any time even in appeal proceedings. The mere fact that

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

20,00,000/- as unexplained credit, under Section 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

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

68,01,423 Excess/(Shortfall) In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that there is NO shortfall in so as to invoke the provisions of 69 of the Act. Sources III. Submissions w.r.t. loans given without interest: I would like to submit that, I have number of close friends and relatives who have helped me by all means

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

20,42,852 1,45,75,57,569 1,45,96,00,421 FURNITURE & 18,32,580 25,74,509 44,07,089 FITTINGS SOFTWARE 22,000 1,52,29,216 1,52,51,216 PLANT & 5,24,47,856 68,31,19,282 73,55,67,138 MACHINERY Total

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