SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section 115BBE of IT Act as it is inserted vide finance Act, 2012 and applicable in case income added u/s 68. Consequently, Ground of Appeal No 4 is Dismissed. 7.5 Vide Grounds of appeal No.5, the appellant has challenged correctness of interest levied u/s 234A, 234B

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)

234B of the Act. This ground is found to be consequential in nature. The levy of interest is mandatory. The AO is directed to re-compute and levy the same, if applicable, in accordance with law. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 24. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the assessee

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)

234B of the Act. This ground is found to be consequential in nature. The levy of interest is mandatory. The AO is directed to re-compute and levy the same, if applicable, in accordance with law. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 24. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. 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)

234B of the Act. This ground is found to be consequential in nature. The levy of interest is mandatory. The AO is directed to re-compute and levy the same, if applicable, in accordance with law. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 24. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the assessee

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL 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)

234B of the Act. This ground is found to be consequential in nature. The levy of interest is mandatory. The AO is directed to re-compute and levy the same, if applicable, in accordance with law. This ground is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 24. Coming to the cross-objections filed by the assessee

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

68 SOT 178\n(Mumbai) [13-02-2015] discussed herein supra. Under section 90(2),\nwhere the government has entered into a tax treaty with any tax\njurisdiction, the provisions of Income Tax Act shall apply to the extent they\nare more beneficial to such assesses to whom such treaty applies. In my\nconsidered view, where there

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ISHTIAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

234B of the Act which is consequential The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of/ during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds for AY 2008-09: The grounds of appeal listed below are without prejudice to each other

E2E SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for AY 2008-09 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above order

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 3100 & 3101/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2013-14 M/S. E2E Supply Chain V. Assistant Commissioner Solutions Limited, Of Income Tax, 4Th Floor, East Coast Centre, Corporate Circle -1(1), 534, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aabce 7932 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. S. Dwarakesh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2026 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of : 09.03.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm:

234B of the Act which is consequential The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of/ during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds for AY 2008-09: The grounds of appeal listed below are without prejudice to each other

K.BADAL BAI L/H OF LATE SRI A.KEWALCHAND,GUDIYATHAM vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed/ treated as allowed

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

234B be deleted. The assessee prays accordingly.” 4. The assessee filed a petition for admission of additional grounds with papers containing copies of additional evidence. The additional grounds are extracted as under: “ 1. The above referred appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned CIT (A) - 13, Chennai wherein the disallowance made by the learned AO under section

PANDIAN HARI,CHENNAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORP WARD 11(40, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms Padmavathy Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2598/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pandian Hari, The Income Tax Officer, 75/151 I Om Sri Sairam Plaza, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Thambuchetty Street, Chennai Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. Pan: Acfph 7870Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr.S. Sankar Ganesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. The prayer raised read as follows:- 1. Delete the addition of ₹40,44,000/- sustained u/s 68, 2. Delete the consequential tax u/s 115BBE and interest levied u/ss 234A, 234B

TR PCHAMUTHU NOW KNOWN AS TR PAARIVENDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

68 of the Act. We noted from the facts of the case that none of the authorities below have brought out anywhere in the orders that the investments are made in financial year 1997-98 relevant to assessment year 1998-99, whereas assessee has tried to establish the fact that the investments related to earlier assessment years i.e from

CHINNAMUNIYAPPA VENKATESH,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "143(2)", "143(3)", "68", "69", "69A", "115BBE", "292B", "234B" ], "issues": "Whether cash deposits made during the demonetization

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

234B. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant.” ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014

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

234B. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant.” ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014