ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

189 u/s 54F in revised return of income as actual investment made in house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4, COIMBATORE vs. NAVARATNA MAALIGAI, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 801/Chny/2023 & Co No.: 48/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Navaratna Maaligai, Income Tax, V. No. 362, Raja Street, Non-Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 001. Aayakar Bhavan, [Pan: Aaifn-6257-E] 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

3. The brief facts of the case are that, M/s. Navaratna Maaligai is engaged in the business of trading of bullion and jewellery, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 28.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs. 26,90,240/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization period. During the course

MUTHALIF MOIDEEN ,TIRUPUR vs. DCIT , TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

3, sub-section (ii) dated the 8th November 2016, namely:\n1. In the said notification, in paragraph 1, after clause (h), the following\nclauses shall be inserted, namely:-\n\"(i) for making payments in all pharmacies on production of doctor's\nprescription and proof of identity:\n(j) for making payments on all toll plazas on the State

ASOK SPARKS ,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, VIRUDHUNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 93/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Asok Sparks, The Acit, 468, Pks Arumugandar Road, Circle 1, Vs. Sivakasi, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar – 626 189. [Pan: Aaufa-8489-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

189. [PAN: AAUFA-8489-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

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

68 in the hands of the assessee. The additions have been confirmed up-to the level of Tribunal. 7. Before us, Ld. AR raised a pertinent legal issue and submitted that specific charge i.e., furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income, has not been framed against the assessee in the show-cause notice as well

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

3,56,06,250/-). Therefore the flat area or saleable area has to correspond to this amount only. The price of Rs.26,414/- as explained earlier is the average price for the constructed area, amenities and the UDS of land. When the assessee had conceived the project, it had estimated the selling price of the flats at Rs.26