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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

120/- paid in accordance with the payment terms... 2. Schedule-B: All that place & parcel of land bearing Plot no. ….. measuring … sq.ft. of land area, along with premiere villa/deluxe villa/luxury villa/deluxe admeasuring a built up area of 2402 sq. Comprised in survey numbers... 3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER: The Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its rights under this Lease Deed

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

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

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

120/- paid in accordance with the payment\nterms...\n2. Schedule-B: All that place & parcel of land bearing Plot no.\nmeasuring .... sq.ft. of land area, along with premiere villa/deluxe\nvilla/luxury villa/deluxe admeasuring a built up area of 2402 sq.\nComprised in survey numbers...\n3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER:\nThe Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its\nrights under this Lease Deed

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

120/- paid in accordance with the payment\nterms...\nat\n2. Schedule-B: All that place & parcel of land bearing Plot no.\nmeasuring sq.ft. of land area, along with premiere villa/deluxe\nvilla/luxury villa/deluxe admeasuring a built up area of 2402 sq.\nComprised in survey numbers...\n3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER:\nThe Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its\nrights under this Lease Deed

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]

120; (b) ―record‖1[shall include and shall be deemed always to have included] all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the 1[Principal Commissioner or Commissioner]; (c) where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal

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 :

4 - of 13 order under the said section]. 36[ 37[Explanation 1.]-For the removal of doubts 38, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) an order passed 39[on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988] by the Assessing Officer 40[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

house, I remembered the closed cover and handed over the same to him. 6. That I then understood that the cover contained the order of the CIT(A)-16, Chennai, dated 28.02.2022 and that a delay in filing an appeal against the said order had occurred. 7. That I submit that only due to genuine inadvertence, I forgot to inform

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:

B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद" एवं "ी मनोमोहन दास, "ाियक सद" के सम' BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

4) requires that he determines the total income of the assessee in conformity with the arm's length price determined by the TPΟ.\n7.5.13 The appellant submitted that the AO has surmised that the profits on the supply of equipment that were made by MIPP were distributed to Mudajaya and Enerkwho have in turn contributed to the share capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

4) requires that he determines the\ntotal income of the assessee in conformity with the arm's\nlength price determined by the TPΟ.\n7.5.13 The appellant submitted that the AO has surmised\nthat the profits on the supply of equipment that were made\nby MIPP were distributed to Mudajaya and Enerkwho have\nin turn contributed to the share capital

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

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

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 29.03.2017 declaring a gross receipts of Rs.2,47,49,862/- and NIL income after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices were issued. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had conducted

JANET CHRISTINE DEPENNING,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [PAN: AEBPD 2408L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Sanjeev Aditya, C.A LMथ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Smt. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024 आदेश

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