JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

54. Before proceeding to discuss this aspect, we find that the Ld.AR has urged before us that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and that therefore such :-18-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

54. Before proceeding to discuss this aspect, we find that the Ld.AR has urged before us that since the Tax / Surcharge / Penalty as contemplated in section 184 / 185 of the FA 2016 have not been paid, by virtue of section 187(3) the declaration is deemed never to have been made and that therefore such :-18-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit of the administrator of the assessee society

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit of the administrator of the assessee society

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ITA No.3018 to 3020/CHNY/2024 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 86 days in filing each of the appeals. The assessee has filed petitions for condonation of delay accompanied by affidavit of the administrator of the assessee society

ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 21(1) , CHENNAI vs. M.RAGHURAMAN , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1990/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue arises for consideration is deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54

DHANRAJ KOCHAR HUF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhanraj Kochar Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 33, Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle – Ii(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaahd2785H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

delay of one day is condoned. 3. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance made under section 54

AA547 KALICHETTIPALAYAM PACCS,KALICHETTIPALAYAM vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

condoned the delay.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "80P(2)(a)(i)", "80P(2)(d)", "143(1A)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay of 54

JAGANNATHAN BASKAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , HOSUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, when the time allowed for the same is reckoned from the original date of the intimation order under Section 143(1) being 27 March 2019. The learned JCIT(A) did not admit the appeal for adjudication that there was no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Assessee further challenged the order

B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, at the outset, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. B. Vathsala in I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2019 dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. When the appeals were taken up for hearing, at the outset, by filing copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt. B. Vathsala in I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2019 dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year

P. ANANTHRAM,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COMBATORE MAIN BUILDING, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of PCIT revising the assessment which is already been examined by the A.O during the course of assessment proceedings i.e., deduction claimed by the assessee on long term capital loss/gain. :- 3 -: For this, the assessee has raised various

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

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

condone the delay of ‘126’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Revenue appeal is hit by tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 which prescribed the tax effect of Rs.60 lakhs as the threshold limit to file appeal before

DEVI MARINE FOOD EXPORTS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 9

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

54,543/- and total aggregate deduction u/sec. 80HHC amounted to "60,52,478/-. Similarly, the Department also filed an appeal before the 6. Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal in ITA No.694 & 695/2003 dated 07.07.2006 held that loss from one limb of the business should be set off against the profit from other limb

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-

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that 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

KRISHNAMOORTHY VIJAYARAGHAVAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-5(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krishnamoorthy The Income Tax Officer, Vijayaraghavan, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), 2A, Tulive Antara, Chennai. Old No.4, New No.9, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Acppv 0131J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2025

condone the delay in filing this appeal and dispose of the same on merits. 3. The solitary issue argued by the Ld.AR is whether the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is justified in confirming the AO’s action in disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act amounting to Rs.10,27,558/-. 4. Brief facts of the case

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The order of the CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the law facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The NFAC erred in confirming the taxable long term capital gains at Rs.6

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

delay within the meanings of order of Hon'ble Apex Court\nbeing suo moto writ petition(Civil) Nos.3/2020 dated 23.03.2020 mandating\nextension of timelines on account of contemporaneous Covid-19\npandemic. In respectful compliance to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court the\ndelay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated.\n4.0\nBefore proceeding further, it is necessary to examine