DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

section 68 cannot be invoked - CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (Supreme Court) ( 1969) 72 ITR 194. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia Vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that addition u/s.68 could not be made in respect of the amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. ARUNAI MOTOR FINANCE, KARUR

In the result, both the appeals raised by the Revenue vide ITA\nNos

sections": [ "132", "143(3)", "68", "115BBE", "153A", "133A", "65B" ], "issues": "Whether additions made solely on the basis of loose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. ASAIKANI NADAR KAMARAJ, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

section 68 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee and verification of details furnished by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: 6.2.2 A survey u/s 133A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assesse on 21.09.2017, in the course of which purchase ledgers were impounded vide Annexure-GS/PE/S/IMP/ANN 1 to 7. The AO is noted to have extensively reproduced sample purchase ledgers in the assessment order and observed that, there are entries for payments through cheques and there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assesse on 21.09.2017, in the course of which purchase ledgers were impounded vide Annexure-GS/PE/S/IMP/ANN 1 to 7. The AO is noted to have extensively reproduced sample purchase ledgers in the assessment order and observed that, there are entries for payments through cheques and there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. ARUNAI MOTOR FINANCE, KARUR

In the result, both the appeals raised by the Revenue vide ITA

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2116 /Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2291 /Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Arunai Motor Finance, Company Circle-2(1) No.326(895), First Floor, Trichy. Jawahar Bazaar, Opp. To Taluk Office, Karur Tamil Nadu-639 001. [Pan: Aazfa7179B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R.Venkata Raman, C.A & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.Nantha Kumar, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

133A of the Act, revealed transactions between Life Line Auto Finance and the Appellant Firm. These transactions, were managed through Murugesan's accounts, included advances and interest payments. The AR also submitted that the Appellant Firm always followed cash accounting system, as reported in their original returns u/s 139(1) of the Act and consequent to the search

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KANAKILIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment\nYears 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 stands dismissed

sections": ["68", "69", "143(3)", "147", "133A", "148", "250"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. KANAKILIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment\nYears 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16 stands dismissed

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "147", "148", "133A", "68", "69" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections": [ "143(3)", "133A", "139(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "68", "115BBE", "127", "120", "2(7A)" ], "issues": "1. Validity

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Appellant between 12 February 2019 to 15 February 2019 and various documents, including explanation / clarification relating to buy-back transaction, were sought and collated from the Appellant. • Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26 December 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Appellant between 12 February 2019 to 15 February 2019 and various documents, including explanation / clarification relating to buy-back transaction, were sought and collated from the Appellant. • Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 26 December 2019 by the learned Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. JAYARAJ JAISON, TIRUNELVELI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2512/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Assistant Commissioner Of Jayaraj Jaison, Income Tax, Vs. No.9/10, Prop: Jaison Bkery, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Kavalkinaru, Tirunelveli – 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan:Akgpj-2821-E] (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman,C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai (‘Ld.Cit(A)’ In Short), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.09.2022 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2, Madurai (‘Ao’ In Short), For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’ In Short) 2020-21. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68 remained applicable. 23. Further, with regard to the unexplained investment of Rs.60,00,000/-, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee had incurred expenditure towards construction of a building and failed to substantiate the source of funds for such investment. Accordingly, the addition was rightly made u/s.69B r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 24. The ld.DR, therefore, submitted that the ld.CIT

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

133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 5.26. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 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