ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of "that previous year " also lends support to the contentions of Dr. Daniel. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first substantial question

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 68 of the IT Act, which provides that the sum so credited in the books and which is not sufficiently explained may be charged to the income tax as income of the assessee of "that previous year " also lends support to the contentions of Dr. Daniel. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, we answer the first substantial question

SHI vs. U CANADIAN CLEAR WATERS LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ITO CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section applies only to a case where “an allowance or deduction is allowed in a particular year and subsequently __ ". b. If the addition is vs Sec 68, the addition cannot be sustained U/ s.68 with regard to opening balance as at beginning of the year i.e., 1.4.2013. This proposition is supported by the Rajasthan High Court decision

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2016-17, the details of which are as follows: Sl. Assessment Amount of No. Year Undisclosed Income declared

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2016-17, the details of which are as follows: Sl. Assessment Amount of No. Year Undisclosed Income declared

UMA MAHESWARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

68 to 69D cannot be subjected to the amended rigours of section 115BBE, including the enhanced rate of tax and the disallowance of deductions. The Ld.AR drawing our attention to sub-section (1) of Section 271AAC of the Act pointed out that penalty shall be levied at the rate of 10% of the tax payable under clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VELACHERY

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. KAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

68 of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that AO had spelt out clear reasons for his inference that the company, M/s. Bholenath Merchants P Ltd. was a shell company and the assessee had introduced a structure for routing unaccounted money back in the form of unexplained capital. ITA No.322

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

183 (Mumbai-Trib.), Jagdish H Patel [2017] 84 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat); Subarna Rice Mill (2018) 96 taxmann.com 286 (Cal) SLP dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court for low tax effect [2020] 114 taxmann.com 572 (SC), Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ALP Diary No. 12670/2018 dated 20.06.2018 (SC), Haware Construction (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 168) (Mumbai - Trib). (iv) It was also

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SALEM vs. ANBU EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KOMARAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Chny/2019, Assessment Years: 2013-14

183. Namakkal. [PAN: AABAA0602Q] 2.0 The appellant assessee has assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A) raising some 20 grounds of appeal. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 20 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication and hence are dismissed. Before considering the grounds of appeal it is imperative to examine the brief factual matrix

ANBU EDUCATIONAL TRUST KOMARAPALAYAM,KOMARAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Chny/2019, Assessment Years: 2013-14

183. Namakkal. [PAN: AABAA0602Q] 2.0 The appellant assessee has assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A) raising some 20 grounds of appeal. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 20 are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication and hence are dismissed. Before considering the grounds of appeal it is imperative to examine the brief factual matrix

SRINIVASA FASHINS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD-6(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy)नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Heard Through Video Conferencing V. M/S.Srinivasa Fashions Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.57G, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Ward-6(4), Ambattur, Chennai. Chennai-600 098. [Pan: Aaics 9511 R] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.N.Vijay Kumar, Ca : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Jcit /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.09.2020 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2020 घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

68 are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the difference on account of exchange fluctuation in the foreign loan is in the capital field and that the same is not an allowable deduction. PRAYER For these grounds and such other grounds that

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

SHRO A/ JOHNKUMAR,,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, CC-1(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 68 on the basis of loose papers found during search in this case indicating assessee's transaction with a company, when assesse not only denied having any dealing with the said company but also produced all necessary details for AO to make necessary inquiries and a letter from director of that company confirming that the said company