BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

267 results for “house property”+ Block Assessmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,149Mumbai1,064Bangalore627Karnataka503Chennai267Jaipur205Kolkata204Hyderabad195Pune193Ahmedabad181Chandigarh133Surat66Raipur65Telangana64Indore63Visakhapatnam60Amritsar34Cochin33Rajkot29Agra26Nagpur26Cuttack25Lucknow24Guwahati24Calcutta21SC13Patna13Jodhpur6Allahabad5Rajasthan3Orissa2Punjab & Haryana2Ranchi2Varanasi2Jabalpur2H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)66Section 14854Addition to Income53Section 54F48Section 153C35Deduction30Section 13229Section 153A28Disallowance27

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

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

block period of six years only if the material obtained during the search under Section 132 of the I.T. Act, or any part thereof, relates to the assessment year in question. In the appeals before us, since it is not in dispute that the materials obtained during the search conducted on 21.08.2007 pertain only to the assessment year

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

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai

Showing 1–20 of 267 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 5424
Section 14722
Exemption22
09 Mar 2026
AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

block period of six years only if the material obtained during the search under Section 132 of the I.T. Act, or any part thereof, relates to the assessment year in question. In the appeals before us, since it is not in dispute that the materials obtained during the search conducted on 21.08.2007 pertain only to the assessment year

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2204/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

house property at ₹.7,81,85,369/- and business loss at ₹.99,61,367/-. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has determined the expenses for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 also. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2203/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

house property at ₹.7,81,85,369/- and business loss at ₹.99,61,367/-. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has determined the expenses for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 also. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2202/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

house property at ₹.7,81,85,369/- and business loss at ₹.99,61,367/-. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has determined the expenses for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 also. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2205/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

For Appellant: Dr. I.P. Roopa JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA

house property at ₹.7,81,85,369/- and business loss at ₹.99,61,367/-. Similarly, the Assessing Officer has determined the expenses for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 also. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and relying on various decisions

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2263/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Block, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle-1(4), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AABCD 2124 N] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCIT /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent by : 21.11.2019 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2019 आदेश

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

ITA 2172/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: 21.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Block, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle-1(4), Chennai-600 010. Chennai-600 034. [PAN: AABCD 2124 N] (अपीलाथ./Appellant) (/0यथ./Respondent) : Mr.D.Anand, Adv. अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCIT /0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent by : 21.11.2019 सुनवाई क1 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : घोषणा क1 तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2019 आदेश

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

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

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

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

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1937/CHNY/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1937/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 M/S Chennai Properties & The Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Ltd., V. Income Tax, Mena Kampala Arcade, Company Circle Vi(3), 3Rd Floor, A Block, B-Wing, Chennai - 600 034. 114, Sir Theyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Pan : Aaacc 3726 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, JCIT

Properties and The Assistant Commissioner of Investments Ltd., v. Income Tax, Mena Kampala Arcade, Company Circle VI(3), 3rd floor, A Block, B-Wing, Chennai - 600 034. 114, Sir Theyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. PAN : AAACC 3726 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent

ASFA TECHNOLOGIES & BPO PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1893/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: 26.07.2022
Section 119Section 119(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(c)

Block ‘A’ Corporate Ward-1(4) Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai. Chennai-600 008. PAN: AADCA 1212C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. R.Viswanathan, C.A अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ""यथ"क" ओर से/Respondent by : 26.07.2022 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of hearing : 29. 07.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1505/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

block assessment, the Assessing Officer has to place reliance on the seized material which clearly discloses the advance made by Shri V.T. Elangovan. Since the said Shri V.T. Elangovan is not available for examination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. Since the seized material discloses

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1509/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

block assessment, the Assessing Officer has to place reliance on the seized material which clearly discloses the advance made by Shri V.T. Elangovan. Since the said Shri V.T. Elangovan is not available for examination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. Since the seized material discloses

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1508/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

block assessment, the Assessing Officer has to place reliance on the seized material which clearly discloses the advance made by Shri V.T. Elangovan. Since the said Shri V.T. Elangovan is not available for examination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. Since the seized material discloses

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

block assessment, the Assessing Officer has to place reliance on the seized material which clearly discloses the advance made by Shri V.T. Elangovan. Since the said Shri V.T. Elangovan is not available for examination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. Since the seized material discloses

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1507/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

block assessment, the Assessing Officer has to place reliance on the seized material which clearly discloses the advance made by Shri V.T. Elangovan. Since the said Shri V.T. Elangovan is not available for examination, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the addition made in the hands of the present assessee is not justified. Since the seized material discloses