DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A’submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A' submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

158\n79,73,302 (3,060 gms)\nAY 2016-17\n45,50,376\n39,13,497 (1,350 gms)\nTotal\n4,52,07,376\n2,18,80,032\n11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A' submitted the value of gold\njewellery purchased by ‘A’between

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

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 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

158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision

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

158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision

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

158 (Guj)]; xv. Inductotherm (India) P. Ltd. v. M. GopaLan, Deputy CIT [(2013) 356 ITR 481 (Guj)]; CIT v. Dhanalekshmi Bank Ltd. [(2013) 357 ITR 448 (Ker)]; xvi. Sitara Diamond Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [(2013) 358 ITR 424 (Bom)]; xvii. Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2014) 363 ITR 630 (Mad)]. 5.25. So far as, the decision

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

158/-\n7.1 Aggrieved by the above action of the Ld. CIT(A) partly confirming\nthe disallowance made by the AO, the assessee is now in appeal before\nus.\nITA No.2174/Chny/2024 (AY 2017-18)\nM/s. The India Cements Ltd.\n:: 21 ::\n7.2 Heard both the parties. Though the Ld. AR appearing for the\nassessee vehemently contended in support of this ground

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 158 BH of the IT Act. The same would fall under the words "and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence" occurring in Section158 BB of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer was justified in taking the adverse material collected or found during the survey

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

SHRI S. PRAKASH,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.156, 157, 158 & 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aippp3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai All Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Only Effective Ground Raised In All The Appeals Relate To Confirmation Of Addition Made Towards Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

158 and 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [PAN:AIPPP3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate

SHRI S. PRAKASH,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.156, 157, 158 & 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aippp3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai All Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Only Effective Ground Raised In All The Appeals Relate To Confirmation Of Addition Made Towards Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

158 and 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [PAN:AIPPP3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate

SHRI S. PRAKASH,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.156, 157, 158 & 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aippp3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai All Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Only Effective Ground Raised In All The Appeals Relate To Confirmation Of Addition Made Towards Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

158 and 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [PAN:AIPPP3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate

SHRI S. PRAKASH,,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.156, 157, 158 & 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aippp3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai All Dated 28.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. All The Appeals Were Heard Together & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity. The Only Effective Ground Raised In All The Appeals Relate To Confirmation Of Addition Made Towards Unexplained Cash Credits Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

158 and 159/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 Shri S. Prakash, The Deputy Commissioner of No. 10, Chellappa Puram, 5th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Doomlight Ground, Tirupur, Central Circle 1, Tamil Nadu 641 604. Coimbatore. [PAN:AIPPP3850L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate

S.KRISHNA KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.418/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri S. Krishna Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, V. Business Ward - Xv(4), New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Afdpk 4054 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) which reads as follows:- FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTICES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC 5 I.T.A. No.418/Mds/16 271. (1) If the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CREYA LEARNING & RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.516/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Creya Learning & Research Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., No. 9/5, Nandanam Extension Corporate Circle 1(2), First Street, Nandanam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aaeck2657G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Muraleedhara Reddy, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 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 13.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case ? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Is It Correct On The Part Of Learned Cit(A) To Delete The Addition U/S 68 By Observing That The Share Application Money Has Been Received Through Banking Channel Only, Without Appreciating The Fact Brought By Ao Into The Assessment Order That The Investors Did Not Have Any Sufficient Own Fund For Making The Investment & The Invested Money Was Sourced Into Their Account (Credit In Bank Account

section 68 of the IT Act. If required, necessary enquiries could have been conducted in the individual cases of these shareholders. The assessee company has explained the identity of shareholders, genuineness of shares of subscription as well as the creditworthiness of the shareholders. No further proof need be given. The evidence submitted is accepted and the addition made