TRIL INFOPARK LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.699/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

68,017, TIDCO paid a sum of `1320 Crores to the Government of Tamil Nadu. The Assessing Officer by the impugned order found that the assessee has not deducted tax under Section 194

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), , COIMBATORE vs. M/S SURABII GOLD , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 372/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Surabii Gold, Non-Corporate Ward 1(4), V. 138, Karuppa Gounder Street, Aayakar Bhavan, K G Street, 63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan: Abufs-6503-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2024

section 68 was to be deleted--Held,yes". The AO concluded that the assessee deposited cash in the bank accounts during the period of Demonetization, but the sources were neither explained nor such money offered for taxation. This finding of the AO is incorrect in view of the fact that the appellant has explained the source of cash deposited

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

194-204\nof the Paperbook filed by the Respondent). The CIT(A) had called for the Valuation\nReport from the Assessing Officer in this regard and on perusal of the same, it was\nevident that Rs.5,92,65,927/- worth of jewellery found belonged to the Respondent's\nparents while Rs.1,00,14,959/- worth of jewellery found belonged

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

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

194-204\nof the Paperbook filed by the Respondent). The CIT(A) had called for the Valuation\nReport from the Assessing Officer in this regard and on perusal of the same, it was\nevident that Rs.5,92,65,927/- worth of jewellery found belonged to the Respondent's\nparents while Rs.1,00,14,959/- worth of jewellery found belonged

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

194-204\nof the Paperbook filed by the Respondent). The CIT(A) had called for the Valuation\nReport from the Assessing Officer in this regard and on perusal of the same, it was\nevident that Rs.5,92,65,927/- worth of jewellery found belonged to the Respondent's\nparents while Rs.1,00,14,959/- worth of jewellery found belonged

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

section 69 of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First and foremost condition is there should be an investment and second condition is the assessee could not explain source for said investment. In this case, if you go through evidence filed by the assessee including comparative details of amount collected out of sales for financial year

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

section 69 of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied. First and foremost condition is there should be an investment and second condition is the assessee could not explain source for said investment. In this case, if you go through evidence filed by the assessee including comparative details of amount collected out of sales for financial year

S4 CARLISLE PUBLISHING SERVICE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 68 apply to the case of the appellant particularly when the those provisions were not part of the Act during the relevant assessment”. 5. The Ld AR submitted that during the year ,the assessee entered into a share purchase and share transfer agreement with M/s Carlisle Communications Inc,. USA, who were into similar business as that

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

194, the entire amount as explained is treated as income only. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 22.07.2010. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 by recording the following reason. ‘the compensation received from SICCL to the extent of Rs.35 crores was in the nature of Interest against the advance made to SLCCL and not in the nature

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

194, the entire amount as explained is treated as income only. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 22.07.2010. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 by recording the following reason. ‘the compensation received from SICCL to the extent of Rs.35 crores was in the nature of Interest against the advance made to SLCCL and not in the nature

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

194, the entire amount as explained is treated as income only. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 22.07.2010. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 by recording the following reason. ‘the compensation received from SICCL to the extent of Rs.35 crores was in the nature of Interest against the advance made to SLCCL and not in the nature

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

194, the entire amount as explained is treated as income only. A survey u/s 133A was conducted on 22.07.2010. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 by recording the following reason. ‘the compensation received from SICCL to the extent of Rs.35 crores was in the nature of Interest against the advance made to SLCCL and not in the nature

H.ZAROOK SYED SHAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1266/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri H. Zarook Syed Shah, The Income Tax Officer, 60, Veerabadran Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Abwps6708E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Bhavya, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Madhivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., First Ground Relates To Confirmation Of Incorrect Computation Of Rental Income & Next Ground Is With Regard To 2

68 of the Act. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. With regard to the re-computation of income from house property is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

GANAPATHY CHANDRASEKARAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

68 of the Act. This view has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad (1969) 72 /TR 194(SC) that "It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income, it is income from as source, which has already been taxed." The assessee

ITO, NCW - 3 (4),, CHENNAI vs. MS. KAVITHA SIDDAREDDY,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, Ms.Kavithasiddareddy, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.7/1, Surabhi, Chennai. Sriram Nagar, North Street, Opp. To Frontline Eye Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aeppk 0880 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit. : Assessee By Mr.D.Anand, Adv : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha.G:

Sections 68 to 69C, is "may" and not "shall" and hence significant amount of discretion has been vested with the AO which has to be judicially exercised. In the case of the assessee, under consideration, the assessee urges that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision were not followed since the entire expenditure/investment were

RAMASAMI PALANISAMY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68,11,750/- paid to Mr. TSRK by way of purchase\nconsideration, holding it to be in violation of Section 13(3) of the Act.\nUpon query from the Bench, the Ld.AR clarified that, though the buyer of\nproperty, M/s. Hindusthan Educational & Charitable Trust, had contested\nthe action of the Revenue, but had later on opted for amnesty scheme

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

194 I by the appellant and hence allowance were in order. Another successor to him, third in a row, this a.o. also called for records and objections and rejected the audit objection. So three authorities in a row of succession did find that the hire charges paid were never in violation of sec.194 I of the I.T. Act and audit

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

194 I by the appellant and hence allowance were in order. Another successor to him, third in a row, this a.o. also called for records and objections and rejected the audit objection. So three authorities in a row of succession did find that the hire charges paid were never in violation of sec.194 I of the I.T. Act and audit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

68 of the IT Act. 2.8 However, money was deposited into the bank account of the assessee company and therefore was the owner of the money. Under section 69A of the IT Act 1961, where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewelry or other valuable article and such money