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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

house property to mean the need for transfer under section\n2(47) of the Act' which is contrary to the case law decided by Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and various High Courts. The term \"purchase' is broad\nterm and cannot be interpreted in the same parlance as 'transfer',\n5.\nThe CIT (Appeals) and AO have incorrectly applied the principles

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

house property’ instead of ‘income from business’. 9. We note that the issue in dispute is no more res integra, since the similar issue under the identical set of facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 has already been decided in favour of the assessee in No.511/Chny/2024 dated 11.06.2025 by holding as under

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

120/- from various properties, which represents lease rental income of the property. It was the submission of the assessee that the property for which rental income has been offered has been taken in lease and in turn, the same were sub-leased by the assessee to various tenants. Since the Assessing Officer considered the above as income from business

VUMMIDI BARATH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal was allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

120 sq.ft. of covered space. Further, the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the decision cited supra has categorically held as follows: “As long as the rent was for the space, terrace and roof space in this case and which space is certainly a part of the building, the rent can only be taxed as ‘income from house property

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

house property . It was submitted that all the loans given for commercial purposes be excluded while allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act . It was prayed by learned DR that onus is on the assessee to prove that it is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act and prayers were made

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/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before passing the impugned order u/s 154, the same fell in the category of an order which is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

housing facilities for the\nmanagement, office staff and the workers of the SEZ units. Having taken\nnote of these legal provisions and rules, the AO observed that the\nassessee had acted in complete violation thereof and therefore the\nassessee was ineligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IAB of the Act. The AO\nparticularly noted that, the payment made

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property and was wrongly offered as income from other sources. While doing so, reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents on the subject. In para 11 of his order, he concluded that the Ld.AO has failed to do requisite enquiries and verification into the issue and hence the order passed by him falls into the category of the same

R.S. THAMILSELVUN ,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 312/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri R.S. Thamilselvun, The Acit, 58, Palayam Bazaar, V. Circle-1, Woraiyur, Trichy Tiruchirapalli – 620 003. Pan: Abqpt 9634A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasanthan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2023

house property only and this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Padmavathi, [2020] 120 taxmann.com 187 (Madras), wherein it is held as under:- 17. The assessing officer in his limited scrutiny, has verified the source of funds, noted the sale consideration paid, the expenses incurred

P. SUBRAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CRICLE 1(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

section 50C of the Act and brought to tax, of Rs.1,19,98,298/- as long term capital gain and Rs.5,16,528/- as short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the ld.CIT(A)- NFAC for all the three issues

K.SHANTHIKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.542/Chny/2017 Assessment Year: 2013 – 2014 Shri K. Shantikumar, The Deputy Commissioner Of Flat No.3F/2, Desiga Road, Income Tax, Mylapore, Vs. Non Corporate Circle – 2, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Ageps 4610C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Mr. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mrs. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2021

120/- would not have been eligible to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, if he had been owner of more than one property on the date of sale. Hence, in order to claim deduction u/s.54F and avoid paying Long Term Capital gains tax, the Assessee had settled his ½ share of properties at Bangalore and Chennai in his wife‟s name

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house property or under the head income from other sources. 2. In case, such maintenance charges collected by the assessee are assessed as income from other sources whether the expenses claimed by the assessee are allowable u/s 57’’. The ld. PCIT on the first issue directed the Assessing Officer has under by holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial

SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD-2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.774/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Srikanth, The Income Tax Officer, 55, S2, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-2(1), Damodaran Street, T Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan: Aamps-0572-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2024 : 10.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha G: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 25.05.2023 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 14-12-2018. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:

house, the NF AC went wrong in restricting the claim without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act was correct in all facets and further ought to have appreciate that having made payments to builders through proper banking channel for the purpose of claiming

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

housing facilities for the\nmanagement, office staff and the workers of the SEZ units. Having taken\nnote of these legal provisions and rules, the AO observed that the\nassessee had acted in complete violation thereof and therefore the\nassessee was ineligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IAB of the Act. The AO\nparticularly noted that, the payment made