SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

demonetization. Now, I offer voluntarily the said amount of Rs.10 Crores which I lent to the trust from my unaccounted cash income under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme on my hands in the capacity of individual". 5. Facts of case in ITA No.1535/Chny/2024 for AY 2016-17: The Assessee, Individual, is a Chartered Accountant and he is the Chairman

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

demonetization. Now, I offer voluntarily the said amount of Rs.10 Crores which I lent to the trust from my unaccounted cash income under Prime Minister Garib Kalyan Yojana Scheme on my hands in the capacity of individual". 5. Facts of case in ITA No.1535/Chny/2024 for AY 2016-17: The Assessee, Individual, is a Chartered Accountant and he is the Chairman

SACHIDANANDAIAH GANESH,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HOSUR, HOSUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:190/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Income Tax Officer, 37, Vaniyar Street, Vs. Ward 1, Kelamangalam, Hosur. Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 113. [Pan: Ajipg-9330-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property”, apart from the commission income. However, the AO was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and considered the cash deposit of SBNs of Rs.2,50,000/- which was made on 12.11.2016 as explained as available as on 09.11.2016 and the balance cash deposit of Rs.2,37,000/- made on 21.11.2016 as unexplained money u/s.69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

House Property, Capital Gain and Loss claimed under Capital Gain. The deduction under Chapter VIA is also allowed. The income under Other Sources is shown at Rs.2,28,57,424/-. The demand payable is quantified in the computation sheet at Rs.1,11,55,972/-. A demand notice dated 20.12.2019 was issued to the assessee raising the same demand.Thus

N. RAJENDRAN,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), HOSUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 869/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late N. Rajendran, Acit, (L/H R. Udayakumar), V. Circle -1(1), No. 19, Ambalathadi Street, Krishnagiri District, Hosur, Dharmapuri – 636 701. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abopr-3225-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T.S. Subramaniam, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

demonetization. 7. The ground numbers 9 is not pressed and treated as withdrawn. :-3-: ITA. No: 869/Chny/2024 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, deriving income from house property

K.P.RAMASWAMY,RASIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:702/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.P.Ramaswamy, The Income Tax Officer, 6-A, Building Society Road, Vs. Ward-2 No.5 Voc Nagar, Rasipuram Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal - 637 408. [Pan: Achpr-5024-Q] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Sri Krishna, C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

house property income, business income and income from other sources. Apart from that, he had earned income from agricultural operations also. During the A.Y.2017-18 the assessee deposited SBNs to the tune of Rs.14,87,000/- in his bank accounts maintained with Canara Bank during the demonetization

SHANMUGAM,ERODE vs. ITO,,WARD-1(2),, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3115/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shanmugam, Income Tax Officer, 194/2, Samundi Nagar, V. Ward -2(1), Extension Thindal Post, Erode. Erode – 638 012. [Pan: Cflps-9824-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025

demonetization period, when details of income levels of the previous years were furnished. 4) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the plea of sufficiency of cash in hand out of past years savings solely on the ground that the return of income filed for those years did not reflect it, when, admittedly

SANJIVA RAOK KUBEVOOR PRAKASH,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

house property from M/s. Coimbatore Sree Mahaveer Welfare Society by writing a letter but the same was not replied. As the assessee could not explain the source of cash deposit made in SBNs during demonetization

RAJAGOPAL KARTHIKEYAN,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

house property. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee calling for various details. Though the assessee responded by his reply on 24.12.2019, but has not 2 provided requisite details called for by the AO. The assessee also made cash deposit of Rs.20,75,000/- in his bank accounts

GANAPATHY CHANDRASEKARAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

house property and income from capital gains. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there was cash deposits during the year. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee calling for the source for cash deposits in his bank accounts. The assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that assessee

VAIKUNDARAMU KANAGAVALLI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K

house property and secondly by way of addition of deposits into bank :- 3 -: during the demonetization period. With regards to other

MRS. INDIRA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO NCW-1(5), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1579/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18

demonetization period. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as withdrawal of Rs. 12,17,000/- on 31.07.2015, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.06.2017 and savings of Rs. 2,72,000/-. However, the A.O did not accept the assessee’s explanation that cash withdrawal was made for the purpose of purchasing house property

KALLINATH BABU JOSE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

demonetization period amounting to Rs. 32.10 Lakhs. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and an NRI. He filed his return of income for the relevant A.Y 2017- 18 admitting total income of Rs. 1,20,020/- from house property

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)

house property and 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

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)

house property and 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

THENRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

demonetization period.\nThe appellant complied to the notices issued and it was confirmed in the\nassessment order that the appellant was doing business of retail and\ntrading of inverters, UPS batteries under PGBP and rental income under\nIncome from house property

PRABHADEVI,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property, income from business and agricultural income. The assessee is running the firm tasty food products. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny as assessee has declared large agricultural income and large cash deposits during demonetization

SRI P SURYANARYANAN,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(4), COIMBATORE

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

house property,\na partnership firm and other sources. The assessee filed return of\nincome on 30.09.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.5,65,220/-.\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O has noted that\nthe assessee had deposited Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) amounting\nto Rs.13,35,000/- during demonetization

MANICAM NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-20(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

demonetization period. However, the assessee did not file return of income. Further, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to any notices. On perusal of the ITS details the AO found that the assessee derived income for the previous year relevant to A.Y.2017-18 from House Property