ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. MOORTHY, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3091/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

68 of the Act, said books of account ceased to exist and hence, those books cannot be relied upon to make addition towards unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act. This legal position is 8 I.TA. No. 3091/Chny/2019 supported by the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. G.K. Contractor, supra, where

JAYALAKSHMI ALLOYS INDIA (P) LTD,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, CORP WARD -2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 50/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jayalakshmi Alloys India (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, S.F. No. 190, Kurichi New Town, Vs. Corporate Ward 2, Lic Colony, Sidco, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccj1929N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.N. Ragavendra Rao, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, Dated 07.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

302/- shown against M/s. Aditya Enterprises. Since the assessee could not furnish any details against the credit, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained credit under section 68

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

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

68,15,675/- (Rs.1,91,50,575/- - Rs.23,34,900/-) between the value shown in agreement to sell and sale deed, proposed to make additions to the income of the assessee as an unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act , wherein it was proposed by the AO to bring to income-tax an amount of Rs.82,00,000/- as income

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

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

68,15,675/- (Rs.1,91,50,575/- - Rs.23,34,900/-) between the value shown in agreement to sell and sale deed, proposed to make additions to the income of the assessee as an unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act , wherein it was proposed by the AO to bring to income-tax an amount of Rs.82,00,000/- as income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Skyline Great Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

68,89,922 1,15,25,809 The settled legal position that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice is no longer res integra and stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Berger Paints India Ltd. as well as by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Skyline :-24-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025

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

68,89,922 | 1,15,25,809 PAGE-23 :-23-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 Great Hills. Respectfully following the aforesaid binding judicial precedents, we are of the considered view that the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in treating the advance rental receipts as income of the year under consideration is contrary to the settled principles governing accrual

SUNPENTA MINING SERVICE PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRLCE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3263/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

302. [PAN:AAVCS 5476L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : S/Shri P.M.Kathir, G. Akash, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) The present appeal is filled

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

302(SC)and also Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd., ITA No.3279/Mum/2008. 4.6 The AO by applying the above ratio, recomputed the depreciation being difference between the book value of the asset and the liabilities transferred to goodwill account of the assessee company which worked out to Rs.14

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, TRICHY vs. SHRI P. KARUPPAIAH,, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.759/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs Shri P.Karuppaiah, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.175/A1, Kulanthranpattu, Circle-1(1), Alangudi, Trichy. Pudukottai-622 302. Pan: Bncpk 6605F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

302. PAN: BNCPK 6605F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. T.Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the Revenue is arising

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

68,16,158 79,73,302 (3,060 gms) AY 2016-17 45,50,376 39,13,497 (1,350 gms) Total 4,52,07,376 2,18,80,032 11. Without prejudice while before Ld CIT(A) the ‘A’submitted the value of gold jewellery purchased by ‘A’between