S.SAROJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Saroja, Deputy Commissioner Of Door No. 47, Pandian Street, V. Income Tax, Sankaran Avenue, Velachery, Non Corporate Circle – 19(1), Chennai – 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Baeps-1299-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

house property for Rs. 3,00,000/- and interest income under the head income from other source for Rs. 8,000/-. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

penalty order was passed u/s.270A of the Act vide order\ndated 15.01.2022 by holding that the addition made under the head “Income\nfrom House Property

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

penalty order was passed u/s.270A of the Act vide order dated 15.01.2022 by holding that the addition made under the head “Income from House Property

SHRI D. RAVIKUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

In the result, the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal. The Assessee craves permission to adduce further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual derives income from house property

SMT. GAYATHRI BALASUBRAMANIAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

house property income. Knowing fully well that it has not utilized the loan funds for acquisition of the property and had the case of the assessee not been subjected to scrutiny this fact could not have come to the notice of department and this would have resulted in evasion of tax and accordingly confirmed the penalty

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDO INTERNATIONAL LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Indo International Ltd., No.18, 1St Floor, Sunkurama Street, Income Tax, V. Company Circle – Ii(3), Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaaci 2408 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property”, the assessee deliberately offered the same under different heads with the intention to evade tax liability. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that it is not an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and accordingly the Assessing Officer levied penalty

EXPRESS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Express Infrastructure (P) Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of No. 2, Express Estates, Vs. Income Tax, Club House Road, Mount Road, Company Circle 2-(1), Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aabce-5521-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2023 : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

house property came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Tribunal in Windermere Properties (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [(2013) 155 TTJ (Mum) 1]. The Tribunal held that the pre-payment charges made for early disposal of the loan are deductible as interest u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was followed by the Delhi Bench in Subha

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

properties , fresh sanction plans issued by local municipal authorities etc. to substantiate that the loans were granted/utilised for the purposes of construction of additional floors etc to the borrowers. The matter is remitted back to AO and the assessee is directed to produce all details before the AO. The AO shall in remand proceedings after considering the submissions

FLSMITH MINERALS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1279/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Minerals P Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Flsmidthpvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 1122D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

house property' , the assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation on such let out buildings and disallowed the assessee's claim of depreciation. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, on which the AO levied the penalty

SMT. ROOPREKHA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.149/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rooprekha Vs The Income Tax Officer, 4/25, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandaveli, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Adopr 8893F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house and claimed deduction under section 54 of the Act. The assessee also did not let in any evidence to explain that value of items under sale was more than what was determined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held that the transaction of sale furniture 5 was sham and was to inflate value of furniture

GNANASELVI UDAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.326/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee had borrowed loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and purchased house property

ABHAYA KASHMIRA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

property and the rental receipts from the remaining rooms as an income from business receipts. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer after examining all the aspects held that the assessee had no intention to invest her long term capital gains, which arose on 06.10.2006 in purchase or acquisition of residential house, even before investing the sale consideration

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABHAYA KASHMIRA, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

property and the rental receipts from the remaining rooms as an income from business receipts. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer after examining all the aspects held that the assessee had no intention to invest her long term capital gains, which arose on 06.10.2006 in purchase or acquisition of residential house, even before investing the sale consideration

SHRI R. VASUDEVAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1730/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13

property purchased for industrial and not a residential house. Therefore, denying the claim u/s. 54F of the Act. He further noted that the assessee is already having more than one house one is at Mogappiar another one is at Anna Nagar, Chennai and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and levied penalty

ACIT CIRCLE 1, VELLORE vs. CHELLIAH PILLAY NARAYANAN, RANIPET

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.375/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs Shri Chelliah Pillay Narayanan, The Acit, Circle – 1, 85-B, Phase – Ii, Vellore Sipcot Industrial Complex, Ranipet, Vellore – 632 403. Pan: Aacpn2046D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

penalty on the addition under house property, the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty. Being aggrieved by the decision of Ld.CIT

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

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

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

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

House property income of ₹. 8,400/- and Long term capital gain of ₹.1,86,40,192/-. The assessment was completed on 31.12.2016 determining the income at ₹.1,91,62,741/- and a demand of ₹. 68,03,570/- was raised. Accordingly demand notice under section 156 penalty