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

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.

section 68 of the Act and accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed and brought to tax. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed confirmation from the above two companies namely (1) Sanguine 3 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No.758 No. 758 758/Chny/ 758 /Chny/ /Chny/20 /Chny/ 20 20 20 Media Ltd. and (2) IRIS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. ASAIKANI NADAR KAMARAJ, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1197/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 54/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 1197/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Asaikani Nadar Kamaraj, Income Tax, 7/84, Pound Street, Chokkanathaputhur, Central Circle 2, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District, Madurai. Tamil Nadu 626 121. [Pan:Aaxpk1318E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri R. Venkataraman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 01.11.2017 Admitting A Total

section 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act in the absence of details and reconciliation by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of sundry creditors of ₹.4,51,82,574/- payable to M/s. A.K.R. Agencies, proprietrix of Smt. K. Selvi on the basis

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

Section 2(31) of the Act. 20.3 It was further held by him that though there was a total disclosure of Rs.325.00 crores originally, by the letter dated 26.08.2016, the values were scaled down to Rs.300.74 crores out of which 55.03 crores pertains to A.Y.2017-18. Annexure-5 appended to this letter had clearly identified the disclosure to be made

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

Section 2(31) of the Act. 20.3 It was further held by him that though there was a total disclosure of Rs.325.00 crores originally, by the letter dated 26.08.2016, the values were scaled down to Rs.300.74 crores out of which 55.03 crores pertains to A.Y.2017-18. Annexure-5 appended to this letter had clearly identified the disclosure to be made

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUNELVELI vs. ESAKKIMUTHU MUTHUVEL IYAPPAN, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.794/Chny/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Esakkimuthu Muthuvel Iyappan, Income Tax, No.4, Highways Road, Circle 1, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli 627 011. Tirunelveli 627 657. [Pan : Arupm 4796J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

Section 68 of the I.T. Act entailed for cash credits states that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source there of or the explanation offer by the assess is not satisfactory then sum so credited is taxed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. STANDARD FIREWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, SIVAKASI, TAMILNADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objections\nfiled by the assessee are dismissed

sections": [ "68", "143(3)", "153A", "148", "147", "132", "143(2)", "142(1)", "12AA", "80G", "46A" ], "issues": "Whether the amounts

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

Section 68 of the Act, in our opinion can be invoked only for those amounts which are not reflected in sales. Thus, while holding that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in confirming the addition for credits in bullion margin money account, we direct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. S.RAJENDRAN, CHITHARAL PO

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "68", "46A", "263", "144B", "41(1)", "115BBE", "143(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) correctly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. S. RAJENDRAN, CHITHARAL

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "68", "46A", "263", "144B", "41(1)", "115BBE", "143(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the AO was justified

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

46A, the additional evidences filed cannot be admitted. Accordingly, the appeal is adjudicated on the basis of material available on record. Regarding Addition of Rs.12,50,00,000 u/s.68:- The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.12,50,00,000/- made by the AO under Section 68

NILAA CHARITABLE TRUST,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The additional evidences that sought to be admitted are as follows:- i)280 Individual files maintained by the trust out of 317 donors ii)Mess bill payment register containing identities of 13 donors iii)Office copies of bill books containing names & addresses. iv) Mobile numbers of all the 316 donors. v) Photographs taken

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S MIDAS GOLDEN DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2562/Chny/2017 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2004-05

46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 as evident from Para 9.3 in page No.26 of the of the Id CIT(A)'s orders. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal by deleting the addition towards the difference in the amount of Royalty payments made to M/s. Mcdowells & Co td & M/s. Herbertston

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN HEALTH FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2237/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Southern Health Foods Private Income Tax, Limited, Khivraj Complex-1, Corporate Circle 3(1), Third Floor No. 477- 480, Chennai Nandanam, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 035. [Pan:Aarcs3296E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Easwar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Srikanth, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 11 Days. The Appellant - Revenue Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said

68 of the Act, para 12 of the assessment order clearly shows the same. The assessee filed additional documentary evidence dated 11.01.2021 before the ld. CIT(A) in support of its claim. The relevant part is extracted in the impugned order at para 7.1.1 of the impugned order. On perusal of the same we note that it was explained that

ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. NEWAY ENGINEERS MSW PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.834/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Neway Engineers Msw Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, A-2, Cebros-Tirumala Apartments, Corporate Circle 4(1), 23/36, Venkatraman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaecn9510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai, Dated 21.02.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 155 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For Adjudication.

section 68 of the Act, after considering the valuation certificate, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Similarly, with regard to the 4 I.T.A. No. 834/Chny/20 disallowance of expenditure, after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as accepting copy of letter of acceptance from different municipalities and corporations