M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

149 taxmann.com 97 (Delhi) wherein the court had directed as follows- Where pursuant to a search conducted at premises of assessee department proceeded to pass assessment orders under section 143(3), read with section 153A of the Act by making multiple references to different authorities located abroad, department was directed to provide and supply to assessee complete details

SRI BANNARI AMMAN FRESH FRUIT,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD - 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3702/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the assessee did not respond to the notices, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee is in appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. Before us, the Ld. AR raised legal contentions that the notice under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

149, Section 151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per provisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections for issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different ITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20) Bondalapati Shivaji Rao :: 27 :: and falls in particular circumstances mentioned in those particular Sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SITARAM JEWELLERS, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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

68,690/- Rs. 5,15,320/- & Rs.47,54,440/-for the AY(s) 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively.” 17. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A) the revenue is in appeal before us. ITA No.915/Chny/2025 for the A.Y.2020-21 18. At the outset the ld.AR for the assessee relying on Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

149,\nSection 151 & Section 153, the Assessing Officer will issue notice as per\nprovisions of 153A. The intention of the parliament for separate Sections\nfor issuing notice u/s 143(2) and Section 153A is specifically different\nITA No.1044/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nITA No.1103/Chny/2023 (AY 2019-20)\nBondalapati Shivaji Rao\n:: 27 ::\nand falls in particular circumstances mentioned

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act is unsustainable. 1.3 As is evident, the sole issue that fall for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act. The deceased assessee Late Smt. B. Devahie is represented by Dr. Balakrishna Raja (Legal Representative). The revised Forms 36, to that effect, for all the years, have been filed

B DEVAHIE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3327/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3328/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Late Smt. B. Devahie Acit (Represented By Dr. Balakrishna Central Circle-3(3), बनाम/ Raja – Legal Representative) Chennai. Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Ahupb-6579-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

section 68 of the Act is unsustainable. 1.3 As is evident, the sole issue that fall for our consideration is addition made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Act. The deceased assessee Late Smt. B. Devahie is represented by Dr. Balakrishna Raja (Legal Representative). The revised Forms 36, to that effect, for all the years, have been filed

M/S. TATVA CLEAN ENERGIES PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 9 I.T.A. Nos.1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/25 13. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

M/S. PIPPALA LEAF DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 9 I.T.A. Nos.1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/25 13. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

M/S. TATVA RENEWABLE POWER PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 9 I.T.A. Nos.1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/25 13. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

M/S. OJAS PLANTATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 9 I.T.A. Nos.1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/25 13. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

M/S. MAHINDRA ORCHARDS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1769/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Ojas Plantations Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aabco1853F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1770/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Pippala Leaf Developers Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcp2411J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1771/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tatva Renewable Power Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaect8340D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 9 I.T.A. Nos.1769 to 1772 & 1793/Chny/25 13. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

149 taxmann.com 399 (SC), it was held as follows:\n“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under:\n(i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes thejurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A;\n(ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall

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

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

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

M/S. MAGNOLIA ECOPOWER PVT. LTD.,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1758 & 1759/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2016-17 M/S. Hillview Renewable Power Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Income Tax/Dc, Narne Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Central Circle 1(2), Manikonda, Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan:Aadch3040D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1760 & 1761/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S. Magnolia Ecopower Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Studio N) Sy No. 70, Narne Income Tax/Dc, Nagar, Beside Lanco Hills, Manikonda, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad 500 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm9358C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1762/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Chetan Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 51, Park View Street, Near Gandhi Income Tax/Dc, Road, Alwarthirunagar, Tiruvallur, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcc7086L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act and made thereon under section 153A of the Act based on the statement of searched person and seized material, is not justified in the case of the assessee. 15. The above said conclusion is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT v. Ramesh D. Patel