VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Capital Gains of Rs.1,32,78,187/- admitted by the assessee has been modified by the AO at an figure of Rs.1,88,57,487/-. 8. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Capital Gains of Rs.1,32,78,187/- admitted by the assessee has been modified by the AO at an figure of Rs.1,88,57,487/-. 8. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain. The deduction under Chapter VIA is also allowed. The income under Other Sources is shown at Rs.2,28,57,424/-. The demand payable is quantified in the computation sheet at Rs.1,11,55,972/-. A demand notice dated 20.12.2019 was issued to the assessee raising the same demand.Thus, it is proved that the additions made which were omitted

KUMARI GUNASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 22(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1350/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Smt. Kumari Gunasekaran Ito बनाम/ # 95B, Rajaji Road, Non-Corporate Ward-22(2), Vs. Tambaram West,Chennai-600 045. Tambaram, Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Bgppg-8171-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. G. Yogeshwari (Daughter Of The Assessee) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan (Jcit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-12-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

demonetization period. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee sold certain properties in various tranches during earlier years which were offered to capital gains

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

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

capital gains on\ntransfer of Agricultural lands had already been offered as exempt income u/s 2(14) of the IT Act in\nthe return of income for the AY 2012-13.\n7.\nIn the light of the aforesaid facts, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A)\nerred in finding that the assessee didn't disclose the fact

RAGHUPATHY SRIVATSA RAVIKUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , NON CORPORATE WARD -1 (3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 991/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raghupathy Srivatsa Income Tax Officer, Ravikumar, V. Non Corporate Ward 1(3), C/O. J. Prabhakar, Chennai. Chartered Accountant, No. 245, Residency Apartments, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aizpr-6860-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains tax on sale consideration received from transfer of property including on- money received from buyer. The Assessing Officer, made additions towards cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69 of the Act and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act, on the ground that the assessee could not explain source for cash deposits made during demonetization

SANJIVA RAOK KUBEVOOR PRAKASH,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

demonetization period in savings bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank, Coimbatore amounting to Rs.29,46,000/-. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment for verifying capital gain

SILUVAIKANI CHELLIAH,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(6),, TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization period. It was noticed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.23,80,000/- in her bank account during the said period. The assessee was accordingly called upon to explain the source of the aforesaid deposits. In response, the assessee submitted that she had sold an immovable property on 17.11.2016 for a total consideration of Rs.27

N. RAJENDRAN,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HOSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 869/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late N. Rajendran, Acit, (L/H R. Udayakumar), V. Circle -1(1), No. 19, Ambalathadi Street, Krishnagiri District, Hosur, Dharmapuri – 636 701. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abopr-3225-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T.S. Subramaniam, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

demonetization. 7. The ground numbers 9 is not pressed and treated as withdrawn. :-3-: ITA. No: 869/Chny/2024 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, deriving income from house property, capital gains

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

capital or revenue, shall be taxable\nas income of the assessee unless the same falls in the exclusion\ncategory. In such a situation, the relevant case laws as cited by Ld. AR\nin support of the argument that 'purpose test' must be followed are to\nbe disregarded and it was to be held that those case laws would have

MANICAM NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-20(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Capital gains of Rs.3.50 Crores, Profits and gains from business/Profession of Rs.65,61,000/- and Income from Other Sources of Rs.4,10,476/- and made a addition. In addition, the assessee deposited SBNs to the tune of Rs.48,43,000/- in his bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank, IDBI Bank and HSBC Bank during the demonetization

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:

capital gains. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there was cash deposits during the year. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee calling for the source for cash deposits in his bank accounts. The assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that assessee was in the business of Rice Mill

THARANIPATHY RAJKUMAR,POLLACHI vs. ACIT, CC-1,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1252/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Tharanipathy Rajkumar Acit बनाम/ 2-Feb Tsa Nilayam, Thathur, Central Circle-1, Vs. Pollachi-642 104. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adcpr-2405-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr

demonetization period by companies which were being controlled by the assessee, the case of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny. The assessee admitted Long-Term Capital Gains

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization

RAMASAMY DINESH,GOBICHETTIPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, ERODE

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

capital gain arising from\nthe sale was duly included in the return of income. It was further\nsubmitted that the cash received on sale was kept at home and\ndeposited in bank after demonetization

DURAISAMY CHETTIYAR BALASUBRAMANIAN ,MADURAI vs. PCIT , MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.352/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Duraisamy Chettiar Vs The Pcit, Balasubramanian, Madurai-1, 159-C, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai. Madurai – 625 009. Pan : Ahdpb 3779M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

demonetization period . The Assessing Officer noticed from cash flow statement furnished by the assessee that the assessee has not declared sale of land of Rs.3,00,241/- in the return of income and hence, he worked out short term capital gain

KANDASAMY KUPPUSAMY,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gains and income from other\nsources during AY-2017-18. Explaining cash deposits made during the\nentire financial year 2016-17 the assessee submitted that the same was\non account of redeposit of withdrawals, sale of agricultural land made in\nFY-2010-11, pensionary benefits received in the past etc, etc. The\nLd.AO noted that 100% collation of amounts

MRS. BALU SUGUNALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

demonetization period, the entire cash deposits to an extent of ₹.11,10,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. 5. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee could