ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPPUR vs. PRABHU SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, TIRUPPUR

In the result all the grounds raised by the revenue for the A

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:433 & 435/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2017-18 Acit, Circle -1 Prabhu Spining Mills Private 121, Adarns Plaza, Vs. Limited, 60, Feet Road, No. 207 – 86, Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 602. Karuvampalayam, Tiruppur – 641 604. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) [Pan:Aabcp-0750-E] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

section 80-IA eligible windmill division of the assessee to the textile division of the assessee at Rs.10,69,94,336/-. The assessee on the other hand had taken the selling price of TANGEDCO to any other high tension industrial consumers :-3-: ITA. No: 433 & 435/Chny/2025 being Rs.6.35 per unit of electricity which effectively translated into Rs.27,68

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ABAN VENTURES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

68 of the Act with respect to the sum found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee against which no satisfactory explanation was offered. 6. Revenue’s Appeal, Assessment year 2013-14:- The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of servicing and repairing rigs, filed

REJI ABRAHAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

68 of the Act with respect to the sum found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee against which no satisfactory explanation was offered. 6. Revenue’s Appeal, Assessment year 2013-14:- The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of servicing and repairing rigs, filed

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

68,433 Processing fee - Baby Shield division 6,87,84,654 Collection Fee 17,15, 76,928 Less: Discounts 3,77,46,237 118,87,69,074 Total Revenue from services as per Note 21 of P/L Storage fees deferred Additions during the year to Advance Storage fees account(fresh 90,22,49,409 enrolment) Less: Revenue Recognized

ARIHANT RETAIL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1,, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1308/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Arihant Retail Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 29, Namachivaya Chetty Street, V. Income Tax -1, Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 021. [Pan: Aaics-3648-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

433) (SC) has held that the presumption that A.O. has considered the details filed by the assessee was "founded" on the principle that an officer entrusted with a judicial or quasi- judicial duty must be presumed to have discharged his duties in a proper and bonafide manner. This view is confirmed by the full bench decision of the Delhi high

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI A. SENTHILKUMAR, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

M.PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SHRI A.SENTHILKUMAR, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

433/-. This ground of appeal is allowed. Aggrieved, now Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 39 44 Appeals of S/Shri M.Palanisamy, A. Senthilkumar, T.M.Muthukumar, O. Arumugasamy & others 25. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the CIT(A) has not gone into the details of seized material in regard