GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 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 6 Grounds 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 Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

68 of the Act remains unexplained. She referred to page 2 of the assessment order in the case of Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan and drew our attention to last para and submits that the assessee submitted all the relevant books of accounts including computation of income, bank statements, profit & loss account, balance sheet, etc. On examination of the same, the Assessing

BHARAT KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-4(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.784/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Bharat Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 152, 10Th Street, Deber Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 4(5), Vyasarpadi 600 039,Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Bfhpb6487D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate For Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri R.S. Hithesh, Advocate Placed On Record Memo Of Additional Ground & Requested To Take Up The Said Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue. After Hearing Both The Parties, I Am Inclined To Treat The Additional Ground As Preliminary Issue.

68 of the Act. She vehemently argued that the order relied on by the ld. AR in the case of Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi v. ITO (supra) is highly distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. After hearing both the parties, I find force in the argument of the ld. DR in submitting that

SEKAR JAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-22(2), WEST TAMBARAM

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

68 of the Act. I find merit into the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there is no power conferred upon the ld. CIT(A) to assess a particular item under different provision of the Act what the Assessing Officer had done without giving a specific notice to the assessee regarding such action

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

68 of the Act for both the assessment years. 6.2 In this case, admittedly, a search and seizure operation was conducted on 18.12.2012. Further, a search and seizure action was also carried in the case of Shri Praven Kumar Jain group on 01.10.2013, who was stated to be one of the leading entry providers operating in Mumbai, indulging in providing

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. K.I. (INTERNATIONAL) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

68 of the Act for both the assessment years. 6.2 In this case, admittedly, a search and seizure operation was conducted on 18.12.2012. Further, a search and seizure action was also carried in the case of Shri Praven Kumar Jain group on 01.10.2013, who was stated to be one of the leading entry providers operating in Mumbai, indulging in providing

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

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

M/S. PRASANTH M PAUN (HUF),,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Prasanth M Paun (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Flat No. 2, Darshan Residency, Door Non Corporate Ward 10(3), No. 18, Medavakkam Tank Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 023. [Pan:Aaihp1298R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2022 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) 12, Chennai Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 59 Days, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition In Support Of An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay Explaining The Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Prayed That The Delay May Be Condoned & Admitted The 2

133(6) of the Act. Under these facts and circumstances, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified and accordingly, the addition made under section 68

SETHU PILLAI NAGALINGAM,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1241/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sethu Pillai Nagalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 6, Anna Square, Ward 1, Thiruvarur 610 001. Tiruvarur. [Pan:Aadpn3943J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2025 Passed By The Addl. Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 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 On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee derives income from doing business in the name of M/s. Ponvandu Agencies and filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 21.09.2017 admitting total income of ₹.4,09,020/-. The return was processed by the CPC under

K 720 T GANAPATHIPALAYAM PACS LIMITED,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

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

68,133/- from Erode Central Co-op Bank Ltd and\nclaimed deduction of same u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Assessing\nOfficer disallowed the claim holding that a co-operative bank is urban\ncommercial bank and does not fall under the purview of co-operative\nsociety referred in section

PERUMAL SEKAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(2). SALEM, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 151 of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition made by the AO to an extent of Rs.48,59,573/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act being cash deposits made in Axis Bank. Out of the above cash deposits

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-12(1), CHENNAI vs. M.SUMATHY, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

133(6) is incorrect as one of the creditors did not appear to summons issued. 6. As the powers of Ld CIT(A) are co-terminous and co-extensive with that of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer could have been directed to verify the additional evidence i.e., the bank account statement of Sri P. Ravi which was produced during

T.M HANDLOOMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SELLUR, MADURAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Assessing Officer noted that as per information received under NMS cycle, the assessee made cash transactions exceeding ₹.10,00,000/- during the FY 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12. Despite various notices issued, there was no response

T.M. HANDLOOMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SELLUR, MADURAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2552 & 2553/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 T.M. Handlooms Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 4, Ahimsapuram Fourth Street, Income Tax, Sellur, Madurai 625 002. Corporate Circle 2, Madurai. [Pan:Aabct6418R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 28.11.2023 & 03.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Assessing Officer noted that as per information received under NMS cycle, the assessee made cash transactions exceeding ₹.10,00,000/- during the FY 2010-11 relevant to the AY 2011-12. Despite various notices issued, there was no response

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ITO CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

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

section applies only to a case where “an allowance or deduction is allowed in a particular year and subsequently __ ". b. If the addition is vs Sec 68, the addition cannot be sustained U/ s.68 with regard to opening balance as at beginning of the year i.e., 1.4.2013. This proposition is supported by the Rajasthan High Court decision

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 6. 2012-13 (Q4) (26Q) 1,44,400 7-May-2015 15-

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

68,400 7-May-2015 15-May-2015 6. 2012-13 (Q4) (26Q) 1,44,400 7-May-2015 15-