M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

condoning the delay and we do so, and proceed to hear the appeal of the revenue as and proceed to hear the appeal of the revenue as and proceed to hear the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection preferred well as the cross objection preferred by the assessee. 5. The sole ground of ground

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated. 4.0 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine in brief factual matrix of the case, as noted from the order of the CIT(A) Supra. ".......2. The assesse an individual e-filed his R/l belatedly on 31.03.2018 admitting an income of Rs.14,69,64,500/-. The case was selected for limited

SENTHIL KUMAR (HUF),TUTICORIN CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, , TUTICORIN CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 653/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Senthil Kumar (Huf) Ito, 34B/4, Briyant Nagar, V. Ward-4, 4Th Street Middle, Tuticorin. Bryant Nagar, Tuticorin – 628 008 . [Pan: Abahs-1591-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

delay in filing of :-4-: ITA. No: 653/Chny/2023 appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is a HUF, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015- 16 on 27.08.2015, admitting a total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected

THOMAS MULAYIMKAL ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 6. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee and his wife are having a vacant land at Velachery and sold it on 15.03.2013 vide document No. 1614 for a total sale consideration of ₹.3,43,98,000/-. The assessee had his wife are having equal shares in the property. The sale

LOURDES MARY ARULANANDAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 6. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee and his wife are having a vacant land at Velachery and sold it on 15.03.2013 vide document No. 1614 for a total sale consideration of ₹.3,43,98,000/-. The assessee had his wife are having equal shares in the property. The sale

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

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “The order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-12 Chennai dated 30/9/2019 is objected to on the following grounds of appeal Exemption under section 54/54F 1.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting exemption under