DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

unexplained\nincome as that stands explained.\n5. With regards to the jewellery claimed to have been offered under VDIS to an\nextent of 1,878.45 gms of gold jewellery:\n5.1. As brought out by Ld AO, that none of the jewellery under the VDIS have been\nfound part of the jewellery found and seized during the course of search

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

unexplained\nincome as that stands explained.\n5. With regards to the jewellery claimed to have been offered under VDIS to an\nextent of 1,878.45 gms of gold jewellery:\n5. 1. As brought out by Ld AO, that none of the jewellery under the VDIS have been\nfound part of the jewellery found and seized during the course of search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

Investments, the shares should be issued to foreign investors only at a price equal to or higher of the value determined under the DCF\nmethod. The year wise details of the shares issued are given in\nthe below table:\nName FY\nAY\nNo.of\nshares\nissued\nShare\ncapital\n(Rs. in\ncrores)\nShare\npremium\n(Rs.in\ncrores)\nof\nParty\nMJC\n2009

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

price is not exact\nmultiple of Rs 500/-), one part of sale consideration received in\nSBNs cannot be considered as unexplained while the balance\nreceived in other currency from the same customer is treated as the\nsource being explained. In case of TASMAC, AO has made the\naddition of unexplained investment under sec 69of the Act. Addition\ncannot be made

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

price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the the cost. It is the realization of excess over the cost incurred of excess over the cost incurred thatonlyforms part of the profit included

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act, in our considered opinion, is\nclearly dehors the scope of the limited scrutiny assessment. By making the said\naddition, the AO has evidently travelled beyond the issues for which the case\nwas selected under the CASS for limited scrutiny. In effect, the AO has assumed\njurisdiction to conduct a complete scrutiny assessment, despite

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF ICNOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. CHANDRASEKARAN JOSEPH VIJAY, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

price mentioned in the documents.\n2.9 Finally, the differential amounts were added in respective\n assessment years as unexplained investment u/s 69. The impugned\naddition for this year was Rs.260 Lacs. Similar additions were made in\nother years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A).\n3.\nAppellate Proceedings\n3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed impugned\naddition

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

unexplained investment in the ornaments was required to be treated as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1994-95. The same reasoning has been given by the Assessing Officer with regard to the silver articles and utensils which came to be detected during the above search. However, the Tribunal found that all the above- mentioned articles had been declared

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

unexplained investment in the ornaments was required to be treated as undisclosed income for the assessment year 1994-95. The same reasoning has been given by the Assessing Officer with regard to the silver articles and utensils which came to be detected during the above search. However, the Tribunal found that all the above- mentioned articles had been declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRI JAYA PRADEEP, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

prices in his notebook. He further stated that he recorded month-\nwise receipts and payments for reference and to compute his commission. He\nclarified that high-value entries pertained to land transactions of his clients\ncommunicated to him telephonically. Thus, according to the AO, the authorship\nof the notebook and its connection to the land dealings stood established

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. CHANDRASEKARAN JOSEPH VIJAY, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

price mentioned in the documents.\n2.9 Finally, the differential amounts were added in respective\n assessment years as unexplained investment u/s 69. The impugned\naddition for this year was Rs.260 Lacs. Similar additions were made in\nother years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A).\n3.\nAppellate Proceedings\n3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed impugned\naddition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. CHANDRASEKARAN JOSEPH VIJAY, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

price mentioned in the documents. 2.9 Finally, the differential amounts were added in respective assessment years as unexplained investment u/s 69. The impugned addition for this year was Rs.260 Lacs. Similar additions were made in other years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed impugned addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. CHANDRASEKARAN JOSEPH VIJAY, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1099/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1100/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1101/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay बनाम/ Central Circle-2(2) 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, 7Th Cross Street, Shanthi Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpv-3488-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)-Ld. Cit-Dr & Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) A/W Shri Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2024

price mentioned in the documents. 2.9 Finally, the differential amounts were added in respective assessment years as unexplained investment u/s 69. The impugned addition for this year was Rs.260 Lacs. Similar additions were made in other years. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred further appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed impugned addition

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

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

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:

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created out of ordinary business sales which has been credited into books of accounts and profits has also been duly included in the return of income filed in relevant assessment year. Therefore

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

transfer pricing\nadjustment and allow this ground raised by the assessee.\n11. Ground No.10 raised by the assessee is against the addition made\nby the AO u/s 68 of the Act, in respect of deposit of Specified Bank Notes\n[in short `SBNs'] to the extent of ₹41,06,000/- during the period of\nNovember-December 2016. The facts relating