LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

capital gains on the account of transfer of properties between the two, if any, the consequential order passed by them should be reckoned as bad in law.] 11. The CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai failed to appreciate that order of search assessment under Section 153C of the Act was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

capital gains in regard to the transfer made\nto Badr Unissa.\n3.9 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not a\nparty to the slumpp sale and the understated value of the property is\nonly to be assessed in the hands of transacting parties without\nconsidering that all connected transactions are integrated one with\nrelated

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), CHENNAI vs. CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains for the AY 2016-17 based on the events that happened subsequent to the assessment year 2016-17. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd., (hereinafter ‘CPIL’) is engaged in the business of I.T.A. Nos.222 & 310/Chny/2022 4 renting out of immovable properties and in real estate business. The assessee filed its return

PADAM J CHALLANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (4) , CHENNAI

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.: 1096/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Padam J Challani, Assistant Commissioner Of 23/1, Habibullah Road, V. Income Tax, T.Nagar, Chennai. Central Circle -3(4), [Pan: Aekpc-1816-N] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023

seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was conducted in the Challani Group of Companies on 19.04.2012. During the course of search, gold jewellery of 8611.100 gms, silver articles of 75.805 kgs and diamond of 207.65 carats were found and seized from the bedrooms of Padham Challani, the appellant and Shri

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Capital Gain as returned Rs. 7,13,052/-\nD. Income from Other Sources Rs. 12,29,325/-\nas returned\nE. Unexplained money (as in paras 12.1 to 12.5) Rs. 3,00,000/-\nE. Foreign travel expenditure added Rs. 1,50,000/-\nu/s 69C (as in para 13.1 to 13.6)\nGross Total income Rs. 1,35,62,191/-\nLess: Deduction under

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

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

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Capital Gain as returned\nD. Income from Other Sources Rs. 12,29,325/-\nas returned\nE. Unexplained money (as in paras 12.1 to 12.5) Rs. 3,00,000/-\nE. Foreign travel expenditure added Rs. 1,50,000/-\nu/s 69C (as in para 13.1 to 13.6)\nGross Total income Rs. 1,35,62,191/-\nLess: Deduction under Chapter

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of M/s. Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and others on 21.04.2016, as the assessee sold immovable property to key person in the said group, her residence was also covered. A notice under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was issued on 10.08.2017. In response to the notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY RAJASEHAR, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the said trust on 15.02.2018. Consequent thereto, various related entities and key individuals, including the residential premises of the assessee, were also covered under the said search action. During the course of the search, certain documents and loose sheets purportedly indicating investments allegedly made by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

capital gains in regard to the transfer made to Badr Unissa. 3.9 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not a party to the slumpp sale and the understated value of the property is only to be assessed in the hands of transacting parties without considering that all connected transactions are integrated one with related

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

capital gains in regard to the transfer made to Badr Unissa. 3.9 The ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not a party to the slumpp sale and the understated value of the property is only to be assessed in the hands of transacting parties without considering that all connected transactions are integrated one with related

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital\ngain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on\nany incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR\nrelying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nCIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

gains.\nAccording to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the\nAO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein\nrelated or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any\npersonal benefit outside the books, thereby having a bearing on the determination of his\ntotal income, to invoke jurisdiction