ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. M/S. P.R. VENKETARAMA RAJA (HUF), RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

house as on the date of transfer of the asset, hence the assessee has not satisfied the conditions laid down in section 54F for granting relief u/s 54F. Further, the Ld. DR also submitted that the new property was purchased in the name of the assessee by quoting individual PAN and the properties sold were related HUF. Since the properties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

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

ACIT, NCC-11,, CHENNAI vs. SMT. DEVAKUMARI,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, Chennai. [Pan:Aagpd0150L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Devakumari, Income Tax, No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Chennai.

123 in respect of B. Suresh Babu, B. Rani at page 148 to 150, B. Ramesh Babu at page 207 to 210, B. Satishkumar at page 327 to 338 and Citi bank statement of account of B. Devi from page 361 to 364. 6.4 Once the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon her with regard to identity

SMT. DEVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-11, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.Corrigendum To I.T.A. No.3066/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Devakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 48, Venkata Maistry Street, Income Tax, Mannady, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 11, [Pan:Aagpd0150L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) शु""प" आदेश /Corrignendum Order Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No. 3066/Chny/2019 As Well As The Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No. 3181/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Were Disposed Off By The Division Bench ‘B’, Chennai Benches, Chennai Vide Common Order Dated 13.09.2023. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Brought To The Notice That There Is A Typographical Error In Last Sentence In Para 9 Of The Order, Wherein, The Bench Has Observed That The Element Of Personal Usage Cannot Be Ruled Out In The Absence Of Production Of Electricity Bills & Thereby, The Addition To The Extent Of ₹.2,00,000/- Has Been Sustained Out Of Addition Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). However, It Was Also Mentioned That The “Balance Addition Of ₹.3,00,000/- Stands Sustained” Is A Typographical Error.

123 in respect of B. Suresh Babu, B. Rani at page 148 to 150, B. Ramesh Babu at page 207 to 210, B. Satishkumar at page 327 to 338 and Citi bank statement of account of B. Devi from page 361 to 364. 6.4 Once the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon her with regard to identity

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

123 Taxmann.com 161. 13. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order and that of the CIT(A). 14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that there are difference forms of members that are group members, stand members or non- voting members and temporary

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

123 Taxmann.com 161. 13. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order and that of the CIT(A). 14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that there are difference forms of members that are group members, stand members or non- voting members and temporary

M/S MADRAS RACE CLUB,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPO CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

123 Taxmann.com 161. 13. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order and that of the CIT(A). 14. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that there are difference forms of members that are group members, stand members or non- voting members and temporary

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property of Rs.7,000/– and income from other sources of Rs.14,826/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of the following issues: - i. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ii. Share capital/capital 6. Consequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2018, followed by multiple notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. 7. During

P.S.JAGDISH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 14A of the Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having income from business, income from house property, income from other sources and capital gains filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 30.07.2011 admitting income of Rs.2,10,63,550/-. Thereafter the case was taken

P. KALAISELVI ,POLUR vs. ACIT , VELLORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.984/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Ms.Palani Kalai Selvi, The Asst. Commissioner – No.2A, Old No.7, Of Income Tax, Abdul Sukkur St., Circle-1, Polur-606 608. Vellore. [Pan: Bcapk 5385 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023

123 Taxman 162 (Guj); 212 ITR536(AII). 2.7 The AO misdirected himself by mechanically levying the penalty of Rs.150000 after accepting the income returned, for the venial default of delay in filing the audit report (OMEC engineers vs CIT 294ITR 599 (Jharkand) - "penalty can NOT be imposed on merely a technical mistake committed by the assessee, which had not resulted