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, 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)

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, being computed at 10% of the buyback value, i.e., 57,06,25,000 :-9-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 • Pursuant to the appeal filed

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)

68,89,00,000 under Section 56(2)(viia) of the Act; and o Disallowance of interest expenditure of INR 5,70,62,500 under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, being computed at 10% of the buyback value, i.e., 57,06,25,000 :-9-: ITA Nos.:1339, 1616/Chny/2025 & C.O.No.66/Chny/2025 • Pursuant to the appeal filed

SANGUINE MEDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NCW-20(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

section 68 of the income tax act to the returned income of the appellant company despite the undisputed finding that the assessee company was merely a conduit company operated and maintained for providing accommodation entries. 7. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law and to the facts of the case by passing

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 of the Act. Further, against the claim of various expenses, since the assessee was not able to substantiate properly, the AR of the assessee agreed for estimating the income @ 2% on the turnover and also agreed to pay the resultant tax demand. The turnover of the assessee during the year

S.GOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ITO, POLLACHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.417 & 1818/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri S. Gopal, The Income Tax Officer 14/2, Subbammal Layout, Vs. Ward I(2), Mahalingapuram, Pollachi 642 002. Pollachi. [Pan: Agcpg2417P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii/3, Coimbatore Dated 30.07.2013 & 28.12.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 Passed Under Section 143(3) As Well As Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. First We Shall Take Quantum Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 of the Act. Further, against the claim of various expenses, since the assessee was not able to substantiate properly, the AR of the assessee agreed for estimating the income @ 2% on the turnover and also agreed to pay the resultant tax demand. The turnover of the assessee during the year

R MURUGAPPA @ MURUVAPPAN,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-4, PONDICHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

68 of the Act consequently in the hands of the Appellant was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of the addition made in the hands of the Appellant was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

167,370,693 21,850,962 145,519,731 94,587,825 2012 15,601,812 13.31 207,660,118 16,744,194 190,915,924 124,095,351 2013 14,370,407 14.64 210,397,129 29,886,138 180,510,991 117,332,144 2014 to N 644,682,110 644,682,110 Total

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

167,370,693 21,850,962 145,519,731 94,587,825 2012 15,601,812 13.31 207,660,118 16,744,194 190,915,924 124,095,351 2013 14,370,407 14.64 210,397,129 29,886,138 180,510,991 117,332,144 2014 to N 644,682,110 644,682,110 Total

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

167,370,693 21,850,962 145,519,731 94,587,825 2012 15,601,812 13.31 207,660,118 16,744,194 190,915,924 124,095,351 2013 14,370,407 14.64 210,397,129 29,886,138 180,510,991 117,332,144 2014 to N 644,682,110 644,682,110 Total

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

167,370,693 21,850,962 145,519,731 94,587,825 2012 15,601,812 13.31 207,660,118 16,744,194 190,915,924 124,095,351 2013 14,370,407 14.64 210,397,129 29,886,138 180,510,991 117,332,144 2014 to N 644,682,110 644,682,110 Total

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

167,370,693 21,850,962 145,519,731 94,587,825 2012 15,601,812 13.31 207,660,118 16,744,194 190,915,924 124,095,351 2013 14,370,407 14.64 210,397,129 29,886,138 180,510,991 117,332,144 2014 to N 644,682,110 644,682,110 Total