JAYAKUMAR THOMAS JAYARAJ,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUNELVELI

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

482/- for AY 2015-16 qua\nhis proprietary business, Ao was of the view that assessee would not have\nkept Rs 2.01 crores idle in his hand. Therefore, he was of the view that\nthe assessee couldn't explain satisfactorily cash deposits of ₹ ₹2.15 Crs\n(typo error, instead of Rs 2.01 crores) and made addition of the same\nu/s.68

DHANDAPANI MALLIGA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(5), CHENNAI

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 336/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Dhandapani Malliga, The Income Tax Officer, No.53A, S.P. Koil North Mada Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 13(5), Street, Vadapalani, Chennai. Chennai – 600 026. Pan: Bzspm 1976R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A. Devanarendran, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2023

68 of 2010 in SRO Pallavaram is given by the appellant. Though sale consideration is stated to have been paid in cash as per sale deed, the purchaser, The South India Assemblies of God, a registered society has statedin court proceedings in criminal OP No.9770 of 2015 that the consideration was paid by 8 pay orders bearing

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

482 & 484/Chny/2024 dated 25.09.2024 by observing as under:- “9.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee claimed depreciation @ 80% on UPS, stabilizers, etc., as part of block of Energy saving equipment, since Automatic power cut-off devices mounted on motors/ Automatic voltage controllers were eligible for depreciation @ 80%. Reliance

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

68 Lakhs and after indexing the same computed the indexed value as on the date of sale at Rs. 1,84,96,000/-. The assessee also indexed the cost of construction/cost of improvement year wise and thereby index cost as on the date of sale at Rs. 27,20,000/-. The assessee then ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 5 -: computed the long

SHRI SURESH ALLADA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -I(I), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

68 Lakhs and after indexing the same computed the indexed value as on the date of sale at Rs. 1,84,96,000/-. The assessee also indexed the cost of construction/cost of improvement year wise and thereby index cost as on the date of sale at Rs. 27,20,000/-. The assessee then ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 5 -: computed the long

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. S R BUILDERS CHENNAI LLP, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2891/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

482 - - - 97,05,001 97,05,001 481 Saravan Stores (Thangadurai) 3,00,00,000 - 2,51,44,051 2,51,44,051 48,55,949 3,00,00,000 - Total 42,12,80,060 7,68,04,993 23,68,51,852 31,36,56,845 10,76,41,579 42,12,98,424 -18,364 14. Further that

SOMASUNDARAM VIGNESHWARAN,MADURAI vs. ACIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) -1, MUDARAI, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1728/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Somasundaram Vigneshwaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Meenakshi Kovil Street, Income Tax, Sri Meenakshi Complex, 1St Floor, Central Circle 1, Madurai 625 001. Madurai. [Pan: Akppv0081K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. On Examination Of The Record, It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed This Appeal On 14.06.2025 & After Scrutiny, The Registry, Itat Chennai Benches Issued Notice

section 44AB of the Act despite having gross receipts exceeding Rs.1 crore, as no audit report was. Turnished. Further, the bills produced for foreman fees and job work were found to be generated only until 28.07.2021, before the date of search, and none were issued. post- search. These bills lacked critical details such as the address and signatures

SREEDHARAN VIJAYAKUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIIONAL TAXATION 2(2) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

68,50,000 Nil 4.1 On perusal of the details filed by the assessee it was observed that the assessee had invested only Rs.2,37,51,990/- towards purchase and development charges of land at Uthandi Village dated 03.07.2013 as against the sale consideration of Rs.3,96,72,000/- received by him towards sale of land. It was further observed

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

68,54,396/-. 4. Subsequently, the ld.PCIT on perusal of the assessment records found that the AO has failed to make necessary enquiries or verifications in respect of the following deductions claimed by the assessee: i) Non rural write off claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) of Rs. 155,55,98,616/- ii) Deduction claimed u/s.36(1)(vii) of Rs.147

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

68,31,19,282 73,55,67,138 MACHINERY Total 5,81,30,811 2,19,49,05,960 2,25,30,36,771 M/s. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd. :: 8 :: The assessee also filed invoices of assets from Page Nos.186-442. 9. The AO second time issued notice u/s.142(1) dated 11.11.2022 for AY 2021-22 asking for the following

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

68,01,423 Excess/(Shortfall) In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that there is NO shortfall in so as to invoke the provisions of 69 of the Act. Sources III. Submissions w.r.t. loans given without interest: I would like to submit that, I have number of close friends and relatives who have helped me by all means

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,61,188/-, Rs.16,36,96,574/-, Rs.10,21,54,055/- and Rs.6,49,29,886/- in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. Apart from the foregoing, in AY 2013-14, the AO also made separate additions on account of suppression of closing stock amounting to Rs.150 lacs and advance received from customer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,61,188/-, Rs.16,36,96,574/-, Rs.10,21,54,055/- and Rs.6,49,29,886/- in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. Apart from the foregoing, in AY 2013-14, the AO also made separate additions on account of suppression of closing stock amounting to Rs.150 lacs and advance received from customer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,61,188/-, Rs.16,36,96,574/-, Rs.10,21,54,055/- and Rs.6,49,29,886/- in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. Apart from the foregoing, in AY 2013-14, the AO also made separate additions on account of suppression of closing stock amounting to Rs.150 lacs and advance received from customer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1473 To 1475/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & Cross-Objection Nos. 28 To 30/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.13 & 14/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 & Cross-Objection Nos. 26 & 27/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

68,61,188/-, Rs.16,36,96,574/-, Rs.10,21,54,055/- and Rs.6,49,29,886/- in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 respectively. Apart from the foregoing, in AY 2013-14, the AO also made separate additions on account of suppression of closing stock amounting to Rs.150 lacs and advance received from customer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADURAI vs. BEACH MINERALS SANDS COMPANY, TIRUNELVELI

68,61,188/-, Rs.16,36,96,574/-\nRs.10,21,54,055/- and Rs.6,49,29,886/- in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-\n17 & 2017-18 respectively. Apart from the foregoing, in AY 2013-14, the\nAO also made separate additions on account of suppression of closing stock\namounting to Rs.150 lacs and advance received from customer

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

482/- -------------------- Difference in the Capital Account : 22,90,232/- --------------------- The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee vide letter dated 22.12.2009 before Commissioner of Income Tax has stated that the closing balance kept with Indian Bank Porur ("3,86,774/) Bank of Baroda (".12,12,517/-) and SB account with Egmore Benefit Society Ltd ("21,897/-) not reduced than the corresponding capital

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

482/- -------------------- Difference in the Capital Account : 22,90,232/- --------------------- The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee vide letter dated 22.12.2009 before Commissioner of Income Tax has stated that the closing balance kept with Indian Bank Porur ("3,86,774/) Bank of Baroda (".12,12,517/-) and SB account with Egmore Benefit Society Ltd ("21,897/-) not reduced than the corresponding capital

V.R.VENKAATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2638 & 2639/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012)

482/- -------------------- Difference in the Capital Account : 22,90,232/- --------------------- The ld. Authorised Representative for assessee vide letter dated 22.12.2009 before Commissioner of Income Tax has stated that the closing balance kept with Indian Bank Porur ("3,86,774/) Bank of Baroda (".12,12,517/-) and SB account with Egmore Benefit Society Ltd ("21,897/-) not reduced than the corresponding capital