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.

325 results for “transfer pricing”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,012Delhi909Chennai325Jaipur218Bangalore197Kolkata194Hyderabad190Ahmedabad188Chandigarh148Cochin124Indore114Karnataka74Pune51Rajkot46Visakhapatnam43Calcutta38Surat35Nagpur34Amritsar22Telangana20Lucknow19Jodhpur19Guwahati18Raipur17SC16Cuttack12Agra8Varanasi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Allahabad3Jabalpur3Kerala2Rajasthan2Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income52Section 153A43Section 143(3)39Disallowance37Section 13230Section 1124Section 10(38)22Exemption22Natural Justice18

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 325 · Page 1 of 17

...
Section 26316
Section 153C13
Section 13913

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

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

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 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 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 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

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

ITA 27/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

transferred , and an excess amount over and above agreed consideration of ` 1.91 crores was received from the buyers towards the said standing crop which was deposited in his bank account. The assessee also contended before AO that sale consideration which was received in cash was deposited in his bank account. Further, the assessee contended that statement of learned VAO which

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

ITA 28/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2

transferred , and an excess amount over and above agreed consideration of ` 1.91 crores was received from the buyers towards the said standing crop which was deposited in his bank account. The assessee also contended before AO that sale consideration which was received in cash was deposited in his bank account. Further, the assessee contended that statement of learned VAO which

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

deposits being assessed to tax by giving appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. 21. The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not bring on record any evidence showing that the said land is an agricultural land and argued that the Assessing Officer rightly held that it is not an agricultural land in the absence

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

deposits being assessed to tax by giving appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. 21. The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not bring on record any evidence showing that the said land is an agricultural land and argued that the Assessing Officer rightly held that it is not an agricultural land in the absence

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

deposits being assessed to tax by giving appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer in the interest of justice. 21. The ld. DR submits that the assessee did not bring on record any evidence showing that the said land is an agricultural land and argued that the Assessing Officer rightly held that it is not an agricultural land in the absence