BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

363 results for “transfer pricing”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,057Delhi915Chennai363Jaipur225Bangalore210Kolkata201Hyderabad199Ahmedabad189Chandigarh151Cochin124Indore114Karnataka74Pune52Rajkot50Visakhapatnam47Calcutta38Surat37Nagpur34Amritsar23Lucknow21Telangana20Jodhpur20Guwahati18Raipur17SC16Cuttack12Agra8Varanasi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Allahabad3Jabalpur3Rajasthan2Orissa2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income42Section 143(3)31Disallowance29Section 153A25Section 13224Section 1124Exemption18Section 26316Natural Justice14

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

ITA 1249/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

Showing 1–20 of 363 · Page 1 of 19

...
Section 153C12
Section 13910
Section 10(38)10

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

ITA 1471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

cash deposits u/s.68 of the Act. The relevant findings of the ld.CIT(A) are as under: 6.4 After going through the specific findings of the AO in the assessment order, remand report and appellant's submissions, following conclusions can be derived: 6.5 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant had received advance against gold product. The gold

PURANI HOSPITAL SUPPLIES PRIVATE LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 489/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 69

price', is ab-initio void as per the provisions of Sec.23 of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eves of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale. Hence the sum of cash deposit to an amount of Rs.1,82,37,000/- (Rs.1,82,57,000- Rs.20

GANAPATHY CHANDRASEKARAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 69A

transferring or receiving SBNs is only after the 'appointed day' which is 31.12.2016. In view of the above, there is no violation by the assessee of any law in accepting SBNs for the purpose of cash sales and considering it to be a due discharge of debt. Furthermore, even the CBDT had issued various Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) instructing

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 772/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

transfers\nmoney from T.Nagar account and withdraws the same at Cumbum,\nand vice versa. In this scenario, there is no question of verifying\nprior withdrawal in the same bank account. Hence, the AO ought to\nhave considered the deposit and withdrawal of both the banks put\ntogether in addition to other inflows. Hence, the cash withdrawn\nought to be considered

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 773/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

transfers\nmoney from T.Nagar account and withdraws the same at Cumbum,\nand vice versa. In this scenario, there is no question of verifying\nprior withdrawal in the same bank account. Hence, the AO ought to\nhave considered the deposit and withdrawal of both the banks put\ntogether in addition to other inflows. Hence, the cash withdrawn\nought to be considered

NEELARAJ VINOTH,PERAMBALUR vs. ACIT, CC-2, , TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

cash deposits or transfers into the creditors' bank accounts. This is only post search enquiry and not something found at the time of search. It is not as if the ROI was not filed. In fact, 3 ROIs were filed. At best proceedings u/s.148 of the Act could have been resorted to but not an assessment u/s. 153C

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 770/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

transfers\nmoney from T.Nagar account and withdraws the same at Cumbum,\nand vice versa. In this scenario, there is no question of verifying\nprior withdrawal in the same bank account. Hence, the AO ought to\nhave considered the deposit and withdrawal of both the banks put\ntogether in addition to other inflows. Hence, the cash withdrawn\nought to be considered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

transfers from the creditors' bank accounts\nto the assessee's bank accounts were preceded by cash deposits or\ntransfers into the creditors' bank accounts. This is only post search\nenquiry and not something found at the time of search. It is not as\nif the ROI was not filed. In fact, 3 ROIs were filed. At best\nproceedings u/s.148

M/S TAMILNADU STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2023[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2024
For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

transfer (give) and the other party to receive SBNs in the\ncourse of a legal transaction prior to 31.12.2016. On receipt, the\nrecipient bears the risk of realizing the value of SBNs received as\nsale consideration. TASMAC received SBNs in the course of sale of\nliquor prior to 31.12.2016 and such transaction of receiving SBNs\nprior

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 168/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 173/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 172/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 169/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 171/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

SHRI RAJU P. MEHTA,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for assessment

ITA 170/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos. 168 To 173/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 1999-2000, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Mr. Raju P.Mehta, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 40, Barnaby Road, Income Tax, Kilpauk, Central Circle Ii(1), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. Pan : Aafpm 1912N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: 23.12.2020
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

price) - 2,24.76.420 Less: GP at the rate of 5% as staled - - 11,23,821 Closing stock including accounted stock 2,13,52,599 Opening stock as per accounts 37,22,888 Add: Purchase accounted 16,39,659 53,62,541 Less: cost of goods sold : Sales as per book: 24,08,964 Less

NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 743/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

price remains unpaid at the end of the previous year. Under those facts, the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that amount due to the company as an advance to the director falling 29 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case, the concern in which assessee

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. LATE SHRI NAREN RAJAN, REP.BY L/H SMT. PADMINI V.R, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1161/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

price remains unpaid at the end of the previous year. Under those facts, the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that amount due to the company as an advance to the director falling 29 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case, the concern in which assessee

PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 1002/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 2(22)(e)

price remains unpaid at the end of the previous year. Under those facts, the Hon’ble High Court came to the conclusion that amount due to the company as an advance to the director falling 29 I.T.A. Nos.1002 & 1161/Chny/2018 & 743/Chny/2015 within the mischief of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. In this case, the concern in which assessee