SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.” • As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under “Deferred Revenue Expenditure” (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, “Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred :- 12 -: revenue expenditure and the same has been written

POINT MANI JANAKI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2306/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Point Mani Janaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Point Mani, Ward 2(1), Door No. 6/32 A3, Point Illam, North Tiruppur. Street, Vijayapuram Post, Nallur, Tiruppur 641 606. [Pan:Agdpj8781C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Hence, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein, it is made to understand that the Tirupur Municipal Corporation levied house property

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

6. The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider the judicial precedents where it was held that once it is demonstrated that consideration received on transfer of a capital asset is invested in a residential property, transactions involved in purchase or construction of such residential property are not complete in all respects would not disentitle assessee from benefit of exemption under

SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property is only from buildings or land appurtenant thereto and not from land alone as offered by the assessee. Hence, the 30% notational deduction claimed on the rent received from 3 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 land was not in order and same has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property is only from buildings or land appurtenant thereto and not from land alone as offered by the assessee. Hence, the 30% notational deduction claimed on the rent received from 3 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 land was not in order and same has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated

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

housing to be allowed in phases of 20% in each phase,\nlinked to occupation in the processing area;\"\n15. Pursuant to the above approval, M/s. MWCDL is noted to have\nentered into a co-developer agreement dated 10.03.2008 with the\nassessee (M/s. MRDL) for development of residential infrastructure in an\nextent of area of 55 acres of land which

R.SRINIVASAN -HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

6. Contra, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of Assessing authority and opposed the grounds. 7. We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and judicial decision. The only crux of the disputed issue argued by the ld. Authorised Representative that the assessee has invested entire net sale consideration in the construction of house property alongwith

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

housing facilities not only for the management and office staff but also for the workers of the Special Economic Zones Units: (11) The Special Economic Zone shall be deemed to be a port, airport, inland container deport, land customs station under section 7 of the Customs Act in accordance with the provisions of section 53 from the date notified

THULASI NARAYANAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133(6) from concerned persons and disallowed expenses claimed to have been incurred after 31.3.2014, found that M/s Gayathri Associates claimed to have completed the work within 5 days of acquisition of the land and hence disallowed the corresponding expenditure holding that the compound wall construction was not completed by M/s. Gayathri Associates :-11-: and from the particulars

KALLINATH BABU JOSE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

house property. The assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny category under CASS to verify cash deposit made during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 32.10 Lakhs. The A.O required the details u/s. 133(6) of the Act issued to Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Bangalore. On perusal of the bank statements indicated that the assessee has made cash deposit

GOPALSAMY,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The appeals stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1384/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1385/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1386/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Gopalsamy Vs. Acit No.3B, 3Rd Floor New No.27 Dc/Ac Central Cir 1(2) East Street, Krishna Apartments, Chennai Raghava Reddy Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan: Bjtpg 4193H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

housing loan from State Bank of India for a sum of Rs.73,40,000/- for the said property on 29.09.2018. Further payments were made to Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited through Punjab National Bank Account. The details of the payments made produced by the assessee are listed as under: Mode Bank Date Amount Paid by of Rs, payment Cheque PNB Chennai

M. AGATHIYAN,THIRUVARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, TIRUVARUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2521/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Muthuvel Agathiyan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Keela Fourth Street, Mannargudi Ward 1, Post, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur 614 001. Thiruvarur. [Pan:Aihpa1940J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Shri S. Kaarthick, Advocate Drew Our Attention To Ground No. K Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal & Submits That The Assessee Challenged

house property only. The said return was processed. However, as per information available with the revenue under e-verification scheme, 2021 formulated in accordance with the provisions of section 135A of the Act, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits of ₹.1,30,67,300/- during the FY 2019-20. During the said proceeding, notice issued under

SHRI M. HARISH KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 4 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.202/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri M. Harish Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. No. 45/1B, Clemens Road, Vepery, Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai 600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Aalph1393Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrreyans Mehta, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021 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) 5, Chennai Dated 23.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Confirmation Of Various Additions, However, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Exparte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A).

house property and income from other sources. As per the information received from the SRO, Redhills by the Department, the assessee has jointly sold property along with two others on 21.01.2011 for a sale consideration of ₹.82,17,300/-, which was not disclosed by the assessee in his return. Since the assessee has not admitted any capital gains arising

INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56 of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

133 DTR 1 (Mum)] and Capsugel Healthcare Ltd Vs ACIT [(2015) 152 ITD 142 (Del)], is that all these precedents pertain to the situations in which applicability of Section 144C was not in slightest doubt and yet the Assessing Officer did not issue the draft assessment order- as is required to under the scheme of Section 144C. That

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

GEBRIAL DE PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-23(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr.Gabriel De Prasad, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.10, 10Th Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward- Heritage Jayendra Nagar, 23(4)(I/C),Tambaram Sembakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 073. [Pan: Adupg3864D] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr.I.Dinesh, Adv. अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Gurubashyam, Jcit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28 .11.2019 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

house property, which led to re-opening of the concluded assessment by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147 :- 3 -: of the 1961 Act. Originally return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 143(3) read with Section

V.PARVATHY,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 21(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.:575/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

house So Purchased" and nowhere the section talks about the sale consideration in sale deed or sale agreement. 2) The appellant places reliance on Delhi High court Decision in the case of Balraj v. CIT [20021 723 Taxman 290 (Delhi), which was pronounced duly taking into consideration the Apex court decision in the case