THIRUVARUR LIONS EYE HOSPITAL TRUST,THIRUVARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2531 & 2535/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 M/S. Thiruvarur Lions Eye The Income Tax Officer, Hospital Trust, Vs. Thiruvarur 157, Vandampalai, Kangalanchery Post, Thiruvarur – 610 101. Pan: Aaatt 0632P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Ambarish, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

Gains of Business or Profession) and does not reduce the “total income” for determining the obligation to file the return under section 139(4C). Hence, the assessee’s contention that its income was below the taxable limit after claiming depreciation is misconceived and legally untenable. The assessee’s plea that it had incurred a net loss

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGEL, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital asset by way of immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and seller. Accordingly, in relation to the transfer of an immoveable property, seller. Accordingly, in relation to the transfer of an immoveable property, seller. Accordingly

R. ANBUVEL RAJAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL RANGE 1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital asset by way of immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and immoveable property, there are two parties involved, viz. buyer and seller. Accordingly, in relation to the transfer of an immoveable property, seller. Accordingly, in relation to the transfer of an immoveable property, seller. Accordingly

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

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.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4))-substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Such being the case, this court

N.SANTHANAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.328/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. N.Santhanam Vs The Assistant Commissioner Old No.14, New No.12, Income Tax, Seethammal Colony Extension, Central Circle-1(2) 1St Cross Street, Teynampet, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 018. Pan: Axups 6533R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4))- substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Such being the case, this court

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

P.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3397 & 3398/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13. Shri. P. Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, P-2, Hig Adyar Apartments, Non Corporate Ward 3(3) Kottur Gardens, Chennai. Circular Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Abbps 1019H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital account 15,94,487 Purchases for which payments have been made 38,44,069 in cash As per ld. Assessing Officer assessee had violated Sec. 40A(3) of the Act in making cash payments of "38,44,069/-. He made an addition of the said amount and completed assessment. Aggrieved, assessee moved in appeal before ld. 4. Commissioner

SOLAR PAPER MILL LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1163/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 271 (1 ) (c)’’. The Brief facts of the case the assessee is a limited 3. company and in the business of manufacturer of paper was incorporated on 26.11.1982 and filed return of income on 07.12.2006 with total income of "47,543/-. Subsequently, return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and the case was selected for scrutiny

HOTEL SARAVANA BHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.474/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Acit, M/S. Hotel Saravana Bhavan, C/O. Shri.T.N. Seetharaman, Central Circle 1(3), Advocate, Chennai – 34. #384, (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. Pan: Aabfh 3049M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

273B, the levy of penalty U/s.271AAB is mandatory, contrary to the assessee’s assertion that the additional income disclosed does not refer to any incriminating material, such disclosure was on account of evidences found during the search operations and when it was confronted with them only the assessee admitted such income, the benefit of levy of penalty at a lower

DURAISAMY RAJESWARI,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:673/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Duraiswamy Rajeswari, Ito, 17, Lakshmanan Nagar, Vs. Non-Corp Ward 3(1), 2Nd Street, Coimbatore. Gandhipuram, Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan:Afipr-0877-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. M. Mathangi, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, J.C.I.T.

capital gain tax. The case was re-opened u/s.147 of the Act by issuing a notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, the assessee did not respond to the notices of the AO and hence concluded the assessment on 12.02.2024 by making certain additions. Subsequently, the penalty proceedings u/s.272A(1)(d) was also initiated for non- compliance of notices issued u/s.142

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 period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release

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 period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account on 08.11.2016 for the release