DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

nature of the decisions of the various Hon'ble High Courts on the same issue on hand and various associated aspects thereof. In view of the above and in view of further grounds that may be advanced, as the circumstances may warrant, in the interest of deliverance of justice, during the course of hearings, it is prayed that the Honourable

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

nature of the decisions of the various Hon'ble High Courts on the same issue on hand and various associated aspects thereof. In view of the above and in view of further grounds that may be advanced, as the circumstances may warrant, in the interest of deliverance of justice, during the course of hearings, it is prayed that the Honourable

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

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

house property. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the appellants claim for deduction under 24(1)(b) towards interest paid in respect of loan taken for acquisition of the property. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal

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

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

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

house property. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the appellants claim for deduction under 24(1)(b) towards interest paid in respect of loan taken for acquisition of the property. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal

DODLA INTERNATIONAL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE RANGE-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3155/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dodla International Ltd., The Acit, 4/54, Rainbow Kasturi Iii Main V. Corporate Range-1 , Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aabcd6591R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suresh Periasamy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2021

house property’. 5. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the consistency of reporting of such income and the assessment of such income in the earlier assessment years was completely overlooked and brushed aside. 6. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the entire computation of taxable total income on various facets was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

natural justice would be nullity in law. 8. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that during the Financial Year relevant to the AY 2015-16, the assessee has sold land & building situated at Velan Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai, for a sale consideration of Rs.1

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

nature of rental income. The whole building consists of 9 floors. 4 ½ floors belong to us the Landowners. The other 4 ½ floors was earmarked for the builder. The builder has :- 12 -: lost his case and all his alleged tenants have vacated the said 41/2 floors in the year 2016. Nevertheless, the cost of maintaining the full building which is only

R.MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NONCORORATE WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

natural justice would be nullity in law. 11. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s.Innovative Auto Tec, filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,38,960/-. During

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

nature of a tannery and not a residential property thereby rendering the trigger of the First Proviso to Section 54F of the Act invalid and baseless. 6.. For the aforesaid grounds and for other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing, the order of CIT(A) may be quashed and justice be rendered.” 2. The assessee

A R HOLDINGS AND ELECTRONICS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD - 11(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

natural justice would be nullity in law. 8. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is a company which is in the business of property development and real estate. It was a submission that the assessee had derived rental income from letting

A R HOLDINGS AND ELECTRONICS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD - 11(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

natural justice would be nullity in law. 8. The Appellant craves leave to file additional grounds/arguments at the time of hearing. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is a company which is in the business of property development and real estate. It was a submission that the assessee had derived rental income from letting

JAGDISH RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

natural justice and fair play. 2 I.T.A. No.3258/Chny/2018 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant has satisfied all the conditions for claiming exemption u/s.54F and is thereby entitled

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

justice, the delay may be condoned. 3. The ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT, strongly opposing petition filed by the assessee for condonation of delay submitted that, although the assessee claims that there is a reasonable cause for not filing of appeal within time :-3-: ITA. No: 653/Chny/2023 allowed under the Act, but on perusal of medical certificate furnished

GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

natural justice. 4) The CIT(A) failed to acknowledge that for deemed let-out properties, tenant details and rental agreements are not mandatory, as per the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. 5) The disallowance of interest on the ground of non-submissions of rent receipts is contrary to law; as deemed rental income

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short. 4. Failure to consider evidence: The appellant asserts that the AO disregarded crucial evidence regarding the acquisition and improvement costs of a property purchased on 19/01/2004 for Rs.6,45,000/-. It is claimed that additional investments of Rs.23

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short. 4. Failure to consider evidence: The appellant asserts that the AO disregarded crucial evidence regarding the acquisition and improvement costs of a property purchased on 19/01/2004 for Rs.6,45,000/-. It is claimed that additional investments of Rs.23

GANESH CHANDRASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house property and interest income. The assessee is also a non-resident and citizen of USA and filed return of income with refund claim of "20,05,973/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 13.06.2012 determining refund including interest "21,37,650/- was issued but the cheque remained undelivered due to change

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

property on the date of signing of agreement. Now, coming to the AO's observation that the appellant had two houses, the appellant has categorically denied the same by describing the complete set of facts which the AO has not considered during the assessment proceedings. The appellant has further objected that natural justice