SHRI PONDIAN MURALI,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, , KUMBAKONAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

condone delay in filing appeals filed by the both the assessee’s. 5. Both the assessee’s has more or less filed common grounds of appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No. 610/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No

SHRI C. THANGARAJ,,TIRUPUR vs. PCIT-3, , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. C. Thangaraj :: 3 :: 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, partner in firms and prop: of Key Tex Hosieries, filed his return of income on 26.05.2015 admitting an income of ₹.6,40,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

THIDUVIL BALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NONCORP, WARD 4(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.3, New No. 4, V. Income-Tax, 5Th Street, 4Th Cross, Central Circle -2(2), Seetharam Nagar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 112. [Pan: Afmpb-5184-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) confirming the additions to the extent of 10,79,630 is erroneous, contrary to law and Sustainable to the facts of the case

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for 2 I.T.A. No.783/Chny/20 adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 02.09.2016 for the assessment year 2015-16 admitting a total income of ₹.53,24,173/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 is erroneous on the procedural aspects involved in the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed. 2. That

FAIZA HEMEED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

2. The learned assessing officer erred in treating the capital gain tax liability in the assessment year 2014-2015 in spite of the fact that, the actual capital gain tax liability arises in the year of execution of JDA, which grants possession over the land through irrevocable license which is related to the financial year 2006-2007 relevant

NAVIN KUMAR NATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1200/Chny/2024 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

2 -: filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the delay is condoned accordingly. 3. The only effective ground in this appeal of assessee is against confirming the addition by Ld. CIT(A) of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 43,49,521/-. 4. The brief

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. PCIT is justified in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act in the given facts and circumstances

V GOVIND (HUF),VELACHERY MAIN ROAD vs. ACIT, GREAMS ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.10 raised before ITAT, which reads as under:- “10. The appellant craves leave to refer to the various documents including sale deeds and sale agreements filed during the course of assessment proceedings and requests that may be considered as part

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(4), CHENNAI vs. P.GANSH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1984/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri P. Ganesh Kumar, Old. No. 17, New No. 31, 3Rd Street, Non Corporate Ward 13(4), Vs. Chennai. Santhi Nagar, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Arnpg6761G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

2 I.T.A. No. 1984/Chny/18 Consequently, the delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income belatedly on 16.10.2013 admitting a total income of ₹.1,67,490/-. The assessee along with 63 others sold the property

M/S DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD,TIRIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.153/Chny/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S.Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 130, B.S.Sundaram Road, Income Tax, Tirupur-641 601. Circle-1, Tirupur. Pan: Aabcd 9708J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 3 “1. The order of PCIT. Coimbatore I dated 25.03.2021 is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable. 2 The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 09.03.2021 16.03.2021 in connection with the show cause notice dated

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

2. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. We have considered the petition/affidavit of delay in filing the appeal and satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Hence

V.. RAMNARAYANAN,COIMBATORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

50C(2) of the Act, could not have adopted higher valuation, as the AO had power to revise his order u/s 155 of the I.T.Act, 1961, later, if warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. (7) The appellant could not be put to a greater burden, pending the receipt of the report from the Stamp

D.K.HEATERS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2285/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. D.K. Heaters, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of New No.41, Old No.20, Income Tax, 3Rd Trust Cross Street, Non-Corporate Circle – I, Chennai – 34. Mandavali, Chennai – 28. Pan: Aacfd 6086B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condoned the delay in the interests of justice. :-4-: ITA No. 2285/Chny/2017 4. The ld.AR pleaded to admit the following additional grounds of appeal : “1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) "CIT(A)" erred in applying the Provisions of Section 50C only on the value of building. 2

MIRACLEE RECLAIM RUBBER COIMBATORE (P) LTD.,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 50C of the Income Tax Act and 50C of which ie. Rs.61.74,630/- i.e. {50% 1,23,49,260/-} was shown as your share. However, as per Stamp Valuation Authority the value of land was assessed at Rs.1,51,80,000/- (full value) and accordingly, your company's share amounting

MIRACLE OLYMERS INDIA LTD,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 50C of the Income Tax Act and 50C of which ie. Rs.61.74,630/- i.e. {50% 1,23,49,260/-} was shown as your share. However, as per Stamp Valuation Authority the value of land was assessed at Rs.1,51,80,000/- (full value) and accordingly, your company's share amounting

SRIMATHI RAJAMANI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1874/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rajamani, The Income Tax Officer, 5/80, Mvs House, Vs. Ward-2(1), Salem Street Plant Road, Salem. Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem – 636 302. Pan: Afppr 2492K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024

2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by four days. The facts are that the order of CIT(A) dated 06.05.2024 was received by assessee on 06.05.2024 as per Form No.36. The appeal should have been filed on or before 05.07.2024 but appeal was actually filed on 09.07.2024, thereby there is a delay

SHRI L. UTHAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1288/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri L. Uthayakumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 2B, 2Nd Street Extn, Jainagar, Ward 4(4), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Aaapu7318P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 247 Days. The Assessee 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 Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 8 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition being difference between stamp duty value and sale consideration paid by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case