ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A)\ncould enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the\nAO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal.\nIn the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only,\nenhancement must also be confined to that issue. Further, the AO never\nexamined

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

251(1)(a) provides the Ild.CIT(A)\nPAGE-19\n:-19-:\nITA Nos: 991, 992, 993,\n1639 & 1644/Chny/2025\ncould enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the\nAO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal.\nIn the present case the AO restricted himself to expenditure disallowance only,\nenhancement must

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

251 ITR 61. The sum and substance of arguments of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) are that interest paid on loan borrowed for the purpose of business cannot be disallowed u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act, when such business has been commenced and further revenue has been recognized 11 from the business. The assessee further contended that

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

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

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

68 by the AO was erroneous. However, instead of deleting the addition, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to sustain the same addition by invoking section 69A, exercising powers under section 251(1

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

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

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

68 by the AO was erroneous. However, instead of deleting the addition, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to sustain the same addition by invoking section 69A, exercising powers under section 251(1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

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

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

251/-, which was the same income as declared in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on analysis :-5-: ITA. No: 511/Chny/2022 of financial statements of the assessee noticed that, the assessee has borrowed

SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2020-21 & 2021-22 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1417 & 1418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Shri. Moolchand Kiran Kumar Deputy Commissioner Of Jain, V. Income-Tax, No. 123, Usman Road, Central Circle 1(4), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

251/-, which was the same income as declared in the return of income filed for the relevant assessment year u/s. 139(1) of the Act. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on analysis :-5-: ITA. No: 511/Chny/2022 of financial statements of the assessee noticed that, the assessee has borrowed

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

68,30,254/- f) Bad debts of Rs 14,21,618/-. 3.5 It is submitted that the above payments, i.e. payments made to workmen, secured creditor, sales tax department, commission payment to mediators, deserved to be allowed as deductions under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 since the same fall under the category of those “expenditure

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

68,30,254/- f) Bad debts of Rs 14,21,618/-. 3.5 It is submitted that the above payments, i.e. payments made to workmen, secured creditor, sales tax department, commission payment to mediators, deserved to be allowed as deductions under section 48(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961 since the same fall under the category of those “expenditure

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

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

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.

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 of the Act.” 5. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee was not able

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

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders

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

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders

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

251 ITR 420, 425-426 (Bom.), ii. Vishnu Borewell vs ITO (2002) 257 ITR 512 (Orissa), iii. Central India Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs ITO (2011) 333 ITR 237 (Del.), iv. V.J. Services Company Middle East ltd. vs DCIT (2011) 339 ITR 169 (Uttrakhand), v. CIT vs Abhyudaya Builders

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

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) &

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the assessment

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

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) &

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 11,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the assessment