M/S. GLOBAL KNITTING NEEDS (FIRM),,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.403 & 404/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Global Knitting Needs (Firm), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No. C-1, 4Th Floor, D. No. 402, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Akshya Belvedre Apartments, Gst Chennai. Road, Nandivaram Village, Guduvancherry, Chennai 603 202. [Pan:Aahfg6848D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Dated 26.11.2019 Towards Quantum & The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Challenged Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹.69,72,900/-

202. [PAN:AAHFG6848D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed

M/S. GLOBAL KNITTING NEEDS (FIRM),,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.403 & 404/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Global Knitting Needs (Firm), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No. C-1, 4Th Floor, D. No. 402, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Akshya Belvedre Apartments, Gst Chennai. Road, Nandivaram Village, Guduvancherry, Chennai 603 202. [Pan:Aahfg6848D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Dated 26.11.2019 Towards Quantum & The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Challenged Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹.69,72,900/-

202. [PAN:AAHFG6848D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

68,000 10,02,87,876 2007-08 2,43,35,309 11,38,61,202 2008-09 1,37,

NILAA CHARITABLE TRUST,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

202. Chennai. PAN: AABTN-0861-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. Sendamarai Kannan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. M/S. MC HOSPITAL, NAGAPATTINAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

202%; (iii) that increase in cash receipts is also not accepted as the bills copies submitted does not give details of patients which are incomplete in details; (iv) that increasing in pharmacy sales is beyond human probabilities ; (v) that books are unreliable and prepared in such a manner so as to regularize the undisclosed income by recording it as cash

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

68,500/-. f. The appellant also stated at Page 10 of the Assessment order that the FMV prevailing for the schedule property was steeply increased from Rs.1200/- per sq.ft prevailing upto 31.03.2012 to Rs.5500/- per sq.ft from 01.04.2012. g. The appellant adopted the date of transfer as on 30.01.2012 i.e., the date of execution of MOA and the guideline value

VPM TRADES,GUDIYATTAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, VELLORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1218/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vpm Trades, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 24, New Street, Income Tax, Gudiyatam 636 202. Circle I, Vellore. [Pan:Aaafv1917D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

202. Circle I, Vellore. [PAN:AAAFV1917D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Skyline Great Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

68,89,922 | 1,15,25,809 PAGE-23 :-23-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 Great Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in treating the advance rental receipts as income of the year under consideration is contrary to the settled principles governing accrual

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. AL-AMEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

202. [PAN AAFCA 7728M] (Respondent/Cross Objector ) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) Department by : Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT. Assessee by : Mr. M. Razzack, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13-02-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 24-02-2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,LTU(2), CHENNAI

section 14A read with Rule 8D. Hence, in our opinion, if it is treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, then the claim of assessee is to be allowed in terms of Order of Tribunal in ITA No. 2126/Mds/2013 (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration. This ground is allowed

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRLE-8, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

section 14A read with Rule 8D. Hence, in our opinion, if it is treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, then the claim of assessee is to be allowed in terms of Order of Tribunal in ITA No. 2126/Mds/2013 (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration. This ground is allowed

ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CHENNAI

section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In our opinion, if it is treated as stock-in-trade by the assessee, then the claim of assessee is to be allowed in terms of Order of Tribunal in ITA No. 2126/Mds/2013 (supra). Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of AO for fresh consideration

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,333 9.15 The above computation of capital gains is also supported by Form 3CEA issued by Chartered Accountant, which is available at Page 2 of Paper Book-III. It is noticed that the AO has not disputed the above computation, from which we find that, actually the net impact of the deferred consideration on the value of capital gains