Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

129 results for “section 68”+ Section 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi793 Mumbai735 Karnataka471 Ahmedabad214 Jaipur198 Bangalore195 Chennai129 Hyderabad104 Kolkata103 Raipur102 Chandigarh102 Surat95 Pune66 Indore66 Cochin59 Rajkot44 Nagpur44 Lucknow40 Guwahati35 Telangana35 Visakhapatnam24 Calcutta19 Patna13 Amritsar12 Cuttack10 Allahabad9 Panaji9 Jodhpur8 Agra7 Dehradun7 Rajasthan5 Kerala5 Ranchi4 SC4 Jabalpur4 Varanasi4 Orissa3 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56 Addition to Income55 Section 6832 Disallowance28 Section 14726 Section 14823 Section 271D22 Section 69A18 Section 54F16 Section 80P(2)(d)

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251

SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN REP. BY LEGAL HEIR S SUNDARAM,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, CIRCLE-2(1), TRICHY

Showing 1–20 of 129 · Page 1 of 7

15

Reopening of Assessment15

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

68 to Section 69A without providing specific opportunity of being heard on this new ground, in violation of Section 251

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NITHYASUDHA COMBINES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the condonation of delay in filing the appeals against quantum addition as well as penalty order before the ld. CIT(A) as well as deleting the disallowance of unexplained capital. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NITHYASUDHA COMBINES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 577/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.576 & 577/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. Nos. 06 & 07/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. No. 576 & 577/Chny/2020] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Nithyasudha Combines, Non Corporate Ward 1(4), No. 8/20, Second Cross Street, Chennai – 600 034. Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai 600 085. [Pan: Aakfn6811A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai, Both Dated 16.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Against Deletion Of Quantum Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Deletion Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. The First

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the condonation of delay in filing the appeals against quantum addition as well as penalty order before the ld. CIT(A) as well as deleting the disallowance of unexplained capital. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders

ACIT, CC -4 (2),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. KAG INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 758/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.758/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Kag India Private Limited, Income Tax, No.264/15-1, Sathyanathan Complex, 1St Floor, Velachery Road, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai – 600 034. Tambaram East, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck5381Q] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, Dated 21.02.2020 For The Assessment Year 2012 - 13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 116 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Pandemic Covid-19 & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of Income Tax Act,1961. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed; This Order is passed under Section 250 read with Section 251

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 1981/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

ITA 1749/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

ITA 1751/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1982/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

ITA 1750/CHNY/2017[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 1744/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), CHENNAI vs. BMP STEELS P LTD, THIRUVALLUR

ITA 1745/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2), `CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1747/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

ITA 1748/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

ACIT CC-3(2) , CHENNAI vs. SURYADEV ALLOYS & POWER P LTD , CHENNAI

ITA 1746/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1982, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750 & 1751/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Acit, M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Central Circle – 3(2), Power Pvt. Ltd., V. Chennai – 600 034. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, 8Th Floor, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1788/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Suryadev Alloys & Power The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(2), V. No.497 & 498, Isana Building, Chennai – 600 034. 8Th Floor,Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. Pan: Aakcs 1246B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharat, CIT-DR

Section 113Section 153BSection 68

section 68 by insertion of proviso is clarifictory and hence retrospective. The assessee’s case is clearly covered by this proviso. Hence, it is concluded that Rs. 11,00,00,000/- is the unexplained credit recorded in the books of assessee, and is deemed to be not explained satisfactorily and is brought to tax u/s 68 of the Income

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

68 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay) wherein, it was held that: There can be no dispute with the submission advanced by Mr. Pinto that accrual of income in case of mercantile system of accounting would warrant the same being brought to tax. However, the dispute between the parties is when did the income arise/accrue? The contesting alternatives are the subject Assessment Year

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 992/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

68 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay) wherein, it was held that: There can be no dispute with the submission advanced by Mr. Pinto that accrual of income in case of mercantile system of accounting would warrant the same being brought to tax. However, the dispute between the parties is when did the income arise/accrue? The contesting alternatives are the subject Assessment Year

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

251 of the Act were not confined to the matter, which had been considered by the Income Tax Officer, as the first appellate authority is vested with all the wide powers of the assessing officer may have while making the assessment, but the issue whether these wide powers also include the power to discover a new source of income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

ITA 1644/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

68 taxmann.com 188\n(Bombay) wherein, it was held that:\nThere can be no dispute with the submission advanced by Mr. Pinto that\naccrual of income in case of mercantile system of accounting would warrant\nthe same being brought to tax. However, the dispute between the parties is\nwhen did the income arise/accrue? The contesting alternatives are the\nsubject Assessment

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

ITA 993/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 69A

68 taxmann.com 188\n(Bombay) wherein, it was held that:\nThere can be no dispute with the submission advanced by Mr. Pinto that\naccrual of income in case of mercantile system of accounting would warrant\nthe same being brought to tax. However, the dispute between the parties is\nwhen did the income arise/accrue? The contesting alternatives are the\nsubject Assessment