DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI vs. PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The only challenge to the order is deleting the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.3,04,63,030/- considered by the AO as capital-work-in- progress and accordingly capitalized by the AO. As we have noted that this ground is not clear and according to us, the Revenue has not challenged

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1872, 1873, 1875, 1877 & 1878/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -2, Madurai. Vs. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., 500, Pantheaon Road, Egmore S.O., Chennai - 600 008. [Pan: Aaact-3408-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Five Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Id.Cit(A)”]. The Impugned Orders Of The Id.Cit(A) Arise Out Of The Assessment Orders Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], In Respect Of The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2017-18. The Particulars Of The Respective Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Set Out Hereinbelow:- S. No

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deletion of the addition of Bogus expenses of Rs.2.7 crores & Unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.9.06 lakhs made in the assessment order framed u/s.153A based on the evidence gathered in the form materials seized during the search, which were further corroborated by the sworn statement recorded u/s.132(4) from the Asst.Accounts manager

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deletion of the addition of Bogus expenses of Rs.2.7 crores & Unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.9.06 lakhs made in the assessment order framed u/s.153A based on the evidence gathered in the form materials seized during the search, which were further corroborated by the sworn statement recorded u/s.132(4) from the Asst.Accounts manager

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

68. The ld. AR, alternatively, pleads for remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to re examine the conditions stipulated in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and this alternate plea is made especially in view of the non adjudication of the compliance of statutory conditions 36 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

68. The ld. AR, alternatively, pleads for remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to re examine the conditions stipulated in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and this alternate plea is made especially in view of the non adjudication of the compliance of statutory conditions 36 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

68. The ld. AR, alternatively, pleads for remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to re examine the conditions stipulated in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and this alternate plea is made especially in view of the non adjudication of the compliance of statutory conditions 36 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

68. The ld. AR, alternatively, pleads for remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to re examine the conditions stipulated in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and this alternate plea is made especially in view of the non adjudication of the compliance of statutory conditions 36 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 13.2 The CIT(A) has, both in the case of TII and EID, kept on repeating the words “when undivided share of land (UDS) cannot be sold separately without corresponding sale of flats. The UDS is inseparable, meaning thereby, UDS goes along with the sale of flats“. There

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. SENTHIL PAPAIN & FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. SENTHIL PAPAIN & FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI A.SENTHILKUMAR, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. SENTHIL BUILDING MATERIAL MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

M.PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. SENTHIL BUILDING MATERIAL MANUFACTURING CO. (P) LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. SENTHIL PAPAIN & FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI A.SENTHILKUMAR, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could