ARIEF NAGOOR ARIEF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1261/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

68 of the Act treating the same as the assessee’s own money, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act cannot be applied consequentially. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there cannot be any levy of penalty under Section 271D

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1) or subsection (1A) of section 272BB

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release of jewellery, for which, source of the same was explained to his satisfaction. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by accepting the income viz., assessed income Rs.4,76,901/- + Rs.5,26,386/- (LTCG) + Rs.1,00,000/- (agricultural) by assessment

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release of jewellery, for which, source of the same was explained to his satisfaction. Therefore, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by accepting the income viz., assessed income Rs.4,76,901/- + Rs.5,26,386/- (LTCG) + Rs.1,00,000/- (agricultural) by assessment

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. S.ARUN KUMAR, RAJAPALAYAM

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

section 269SS of the IT Act 1961 and prayed for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that due to business exigency assessee borrowed loans from above four parties in cash and there exist reasonable cause for borrowing the money in cash. She also submitted that in view of provisions

SAI TELECOM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2534/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Sai Telecom, The Income Tax Officer, No.407, 4Th Floor, Kaveri Complex, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-3(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Abrfs-4178-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023

68 of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed. Even otherwise also if the loan was found to be genuine, the same would have attracted the penal provisions of section 271D

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISH KUMAR EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ANISHKUMAR MALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR MARRIAGE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

ANISH KUMAR WIFE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

M/S. ARCHANA FEMALE CHILD TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 11 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

68 ITR 760 (SC), means that he is not liable to be assessed by a proceeding for rectification under Sec. 35, sub-section (1), he is not ‘denying his liability to be assessed under this Act’. His objection then is only against a proceeding for assessment under a particular provision of the Act. He does

JANARDHANAM BALAJI,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

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

271D and 271E of the Act were dated 31.8.2015. The penalty orders were also passed by ld. ACIT, Kancheepuram. Such penalty orders were passed on 29.02.2016 and was therefore well within the time limits. 9. Now coming to the merits of the case, even if we accept the vouchers produced by the assessee in support of the transactions, the aggregate

SHRI JANARDHANAM BALAJI,,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

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

271D and 271E of the Act were dated 31.8.2015. The penalty orders were also passed by ld. ACIT, Kancheepuram. Such penalty orders were passed on 29.02.2016 and was therefore well within the time limits. 9. Now coming to the merits of the case, even if we accept the vouchers produced by the assessee in support of the transactions, the aggregate