AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 14A and 68 of the Act. By making an addition u/s.69 of the Act, the AO has clearly exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him and travelled beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. 96. For this reason, we are unable to subscribe to the reasoning adopted by the Ld.CIT(A) that since the asset was included in the gain

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

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

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, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEWAY ENGINEERS MSW PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.834/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Neway Engineers Msw Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, A-2, Cebros-Tirumala Apartments, Corporate Circle 4(1), 23/36, Venkatraman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaecn9510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai, Dated 21.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 155 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

155 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 2 I.T.A. No. 834/Chny/20 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and converting charcoal powder, pellets

HARSHA IMPEX,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3351/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Harsha Impex, The Income Tax Officer, No. 28, Kattur Sadayappan Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aacfh0426K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. B. Jaisheila, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 02.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In Its Appeal, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Overseas Export Commission Of ₹.30,68,879/- Paid To Non Residents Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii), The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses

68,879/- attracts provisions of TDS under section 195 of the Act. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel that by following the decision in the case of Thomas George Muthoot v. CIT in ITA No. 278 of 2014 dated 03.07.2015, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made under section

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

SMART MARKETING,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1695/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Smart Marketing, The Income Tax Officer, No.19, Ground Floor, V. Ward -2(1), Arun Papers, 44, Williams Road, Opp To Gvn Hospital, Cantonment, Babu Road, Tiruchirapalli – 620 001. Tiruchirapalli – 620 008. [Pan: Adqfs-8517-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. C. Murugesan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

section 68 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44. Further, the ld.AR also stated that the assessee had provided the entire financial statements of the lender along with the details of the turnover which is sufficiently covered for the source