ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

prices are highly volatile. Timely lifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could result in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport operators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the assessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments through direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various stages. 11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, NCC-2, , COIMBATORE vs. PSR & SONS, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. P.S.R.SILK SAREES INDIA PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. PSR SILK SAREES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. PSR MARKETING COMPANY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

purchase price of a share based on SEBI regulations can be deemed to be the selling price. The Bombay High Court decision in Killick Nixon Ltd. v DCIT 20 Taxmann.com 703: [20121208 Taxman 45, dealt with a transaction which was found to be sham and bogus. In the present case, there is no such finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing proceedings, the assessee has submitted that Letter of Comfort is a facility to avail credit by Parry America Inc. which is a subsidiary of the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee contented before the TPO that, the above facility is not a guarantee and the adjustment towards guarantee commission would not arise with reference to Section

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

transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above what is clear is that up to the appointed date Le 31.12.2016, there is no prohibition for dealing with Specified Bank Notes. Therefore, in my considered view, the objection of the AO on this regard in light of said Act is devoid of merits. Further, a similar issue had been

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

transfer or receive any Specified Bank Notes. From the above what is clear is that up to the appointed date Le 31.12.2016, there is no prohibition for dealing with Specified Bank Notes. Therefore, in my considered view, the objection of the AO on this regard in light of said Act is devoid of merits. Further, a similar issue had been

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Bogus purchase as stated by you, I request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” request you to provide me 15 days time to reconcile the same.” 4.6 In light of the above seized electronic material, depositions of the In light of the above