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

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

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

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

249 ITR 109, 110-11 (MP), where the notice was issued after recording reasons in that regard, initiation was upheld. ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 37 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.15. Likewise, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Add/. CIT, (2002) 257 ITR 481, 489, 494- 95, special leave petition dismissed by the Supreme Court

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

249 ITR 109, 110-11 (MP), where the notice was issued after recording reasons in that regard, initiation was upheld. ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 37 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.15. Likewise, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Add/. CIT, (2002) 257 ITR 481, 489, 494- 95, special leave petition dismissed by the Supreme Court

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

249 ITR 109, 110-11 (MP), where the notice was issued after recording reasons in that regard, initiation was upheld. ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 37 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.15. Likewise, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Garden Finance Ltd. v. Add/. CIT, (2002) 257 ITR 481, 489, 494- 95, special leave petition dismissed by the Supreme Court

KRISHNAMURTHY PANDY,THANJAVUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, THANJAVUR

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

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

249/-. A table showing monthly sales as per VAT was also submitted. As far as the addition is concerned, the VAT for November and December is as follows: Period Total VAT on sales Total Amount Deposited in bank Turnover Invoice (including NEFT & Cheque Value clearance

SRI SOWBAGYA FINANCIERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KARUR

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1723/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 Sri Sowbagya Financiers, Income Tax Officer, No.28/9-1, Ramakrishnapuram, Ward-1 Kaspa, Karur Town, Karur Karur-639001. [Pan: Abgfs4214D]

section 68 can only be invoked with reference to fresh / new loans acquired during the year and not the loans taken on earlier years. 10. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter concerning unsecured loans claimed to have been received by the assessee have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed

ARAGUNTULU BALARAMRAJA RAM GEETHA,RAJAPALAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, VIRUDHUNAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE, VIRUDHUNAGAR

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.:331/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Araguntulu Balaramraja Ram The Income Tax Officer, Geetha, Vs. Ward 3, Income Tax Office, No.141, Viruthunagar, Railway Feeder Road, Palayapalayam, Virudhunagar – 626 001. Dharmaraja Big Street, Rajapalayam- 626 117. [Pan: Banpr-3583-H] (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

Section 68 of the Act to the total income and concluded the assessment. Subsequently, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC. However, the assessee did not participate in the appeal proceedings also inspite of providing five opportunities by the ld.CIT(A) from 09.11.2023 to 08.04.2024 as noted in paragraph 5 of the ld.CIT(A) order

ARUNA ALLOY STEELS PRIVATES LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT,CORP. CIRCLE-1, MADURAI, MADURAIQ

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

NATESAN PRECISION COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1397/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Natesan Precision Components Dcit, Private Limited, V. Corporate Circle -4(1), No.54/4, Paul Wells Road, Chennai. St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016. [Pan: Aaacn-9992-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate : Shri. T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

COPRAL ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,KRISHNAGIRI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.767/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Copral Energy Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Plot No.12, Sipcot, Phase-Ii, Circle-1(1), Krishnagiri District-635 109. Salem. [Pan: Aaacc 8486 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

ROOTS INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE (1), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – R.K.G. Industrial Estate, Of Income Tax, Ganapathy, Corporate Circle-(1), Coimbatore-641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabcr 0314 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68 of the Act, on the ground that for the purpose of claiming deduction, the assessee did not file necessary certificate in Form 10CCB of the Act along with the return of income, which was filed on 18.7.2005 declaring the income as Rs.1,02,11,036/-. 3. As against the disallowance of the claim, the assessee filed an appeal before

TIRUPUR ARUNACHALA GOUNDER RADHAMBIKAI KUPPUSAMY,TIRUPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.363/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) T A G Radhambikai Kuppusamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Mp Nagar Extension, Che –C (68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607

68) (1) Suriya Prabha Garden, Chennai. Tirupur 641 607 [PAN: ADOPR 3346P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. S. Ramachandran, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 02.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R MANU

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

68 of the Act. 8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A) but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons recorded in appellate order dated 19.11.2018 has confirmed additions made by Assessing Officer towards sale consideration received from transfer of equity shares on the ground that entire transaction was fraudulent to create undue

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

249 is less than the threshold limit of INR 5,000,000 prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') as amended vide Finance Act, 2021, read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 and as a result the case cannot be subjected to reassessment proceedings and such proceedings conducted

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

249/- L&T Finance Ltd. 19,13,280/- 11,27,773/- Mahindra Finance Ltd. 72,68,060/- 6,50,533/- Reliance Capital 73,50,033/- 8,56,347/- Sundaram Finance Ltd. 65,41,526/- 5,00,372/- Tata Finance Ltd. 64,23,139/- 6,62,037/- Total 4,37,72,533/- 53,18,606/- The AO observed that the assessee

KAVYA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for ay: 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

249/- L&T Finance Ltd. 19,13,280/- 11,27,773/- Mahindra Finance Ltd. 72,68,060/- 6,50,533/- Reliance Capital 73,50,033/- 8,56,347/- Sundaram Finance Ltd. 65,41,526/- 5,00,372/- Tata Finance Ltd. 64,23,139/- 6,62,037/- Total 4,37,72,533/- 53,18,606/- The AO observed that the assessee