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

ITO WA, TIRUCHENGODE vs. C.GOPALAN, NAMAKKAL

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68,168/- for Trasport hire charges without deducting TDS, Hence, the non deduction of TDS payment on transport hire charges is to be fully disallowed under section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2) , CHENNAI vs. CMG STEELS PVT. LTD. , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1985/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 155/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1985/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2021

Section 68 of the Act and made additions to total income. Similarly, the AO has made addition towards interest paid on said loans u/s.37 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has challenged assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C

ACIT, NCC-2,, MADURAI vs. GANESAN ANBUSELVAM, THIRUTHANGAL

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

168) (Mumbai - Trib). (iv) It was also submitted that the deposits made during the demonetization period represented only the business transactions. Shri Ganesan Anbuselvam :: 7 :: Out of the sale proceeds of all the three concerns, the cash was deposited in the bank account which includes demonetized currency. From the withdrawal of the said bank account. money were utilized for making

SUMATHI MANIVANNAN,VELLORE vs. ITO WARD 2, VELLORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2537/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

168,120/- to the credit of M/s Pandy Ceramics in the bank account amounts to violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act. Moreover, merely because the assessee has purchased to the extent of ₹5,35,02,956/-, it cannot be said that there was commercial expediency or urgency in making payment to the extent of ₹14,68

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

68,183/- which comprised\nof (a) fees from music classes and library subscription of Rs.8,92,082/-\n(b) interest income of Rs.1,79,926/- and (c) surplus from petrol outlet of\nRs.73,27,209/-. It was brought to our notice from the balance-sheet that,\nthese receipts were applied towards (i) music school expenses of\nRs.16

P & C CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

P & C CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3242 & 3243/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.P & C Constructions (P) Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.140, P & C Towers, Income Tax, Perundurai Road, Range-I, Erode-638 011. Erode [Pan: Aabcp 2483 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.B.Parthasarathy, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.M.S.Deeptha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

N.RAMALINGAM & CO.,,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 1249/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 N. Ramalingam & Co., Assistant Commissioner Of Income No. 252 Chandran Studio Building, Vs. Tax, Gandhiji Road, Circle – 1, Erode – 638 001. Erode.

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

URC CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

M/S. URC CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

M/S. URC CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,ERODE vs. ACIT, ERODE

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

168/-. As the assessee had failed to deduct TDS on such payments, the expenses are bound to be disallowed u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act. Also it is seen in the Form 3CD, against item No.27 (b) the auditor was required to report the details of non-compliance with the TDS provision in Chapter XVII

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

D.SRINIVAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before

GAYATHRI DEVI VYAS, D.SRINIVAS VYAS MANOHAR VYAS VIJAY SHRI LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI DURGA DAS VYAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

68,140/- by adding commission payment of ₹.2,73,69,761/- from the above mentioned three entities and also by disallowing the expenditure of 6 I.T.A. No.2691 & 2692/Chny/18 & 2693 to 2698/Chny/18 ₹.49,34,520/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the Act was also initiated in the assessment completed on 30.12.2008. The order was appealed before