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

140/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has adopted annual value of house property at Rs. 5,40,000/-, instead of Rs. 8,40,000/- in the revised return filed for the relevant assessment year and therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why difference

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

house property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” The issue involved in the present appeal is similar to that of the issue dealt with in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal having modified or reversed

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

PRAVEEN KUMAR G JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2728/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Praveen Kumar G Jain, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.52, Near Select Theatre, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), Nattupillaiyar Koil Street, Chennai – 600 034. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. [Pan:Aeapp-4675-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act which was incurred for the purpose of earning income from other sources. For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice. 3. The brief facts

SACHIDANANDAIAH GANESH,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HOSUR, HOSUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:190/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Income Tax Officer, 37, Vaniyar Street, Vs. Ward 1, Kelamangalam, Hosur. Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 113. [Pan: Ajipg-9330-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 69A of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5. The learned lower Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying tax u/s l 15BBE of the Act for the transaction made before 15.12.2016. Each of the above grounds is without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave

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)

140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AACCI 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT Revenue by सुनवाईक0तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27.11.2018 घोषणाक0तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 आदेश/ O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The assessee filed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

140 (SC), CIT vs. Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern

VENKATRAMAN JAYASHREE PRIYADHARSHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Income Tax, Rajaji 1St Street, Lake Area, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Adapj3317L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Extent Of ₹.88,85,000/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

140 taxmann.com 441 [Bang. Trib] and submits that the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to claim additional expenditure incurred by the assessee on interior renovation and furnishing of said new residential property after date of registrations as to make said house habitable under section

ASHA MARTHANDA PILLAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

140/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that assessee had sold a property at Madipakkam, Chennai for a consideration of "63,00,000/- on 28.09.2012. Assessee had claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act on the gains arising out of sale of above property. As per the assessee, she had invested

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i).” 14.1 We also noted that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cricket Club, supra has considered this issue and considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd., 92 taxmann 278 (SC) has held that the assessee is entitled to claim mutuality

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i).” 14.1 We also noted that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cricket Club, supra has considered this issue and considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd., 92 taxmann 278 (SC) has held that the assessee is entitled to claim mutuality

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

section 80P(2)(a)(i).” 14.1 We also noted that the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Madras Cricket Club, supra has considered this issue and considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bankipur Club Ltd., 92 taxmann 278 (SC) has held that the assessee is entitled to claim mutuality

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

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

SUPRIYA P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which

ITO, CHENNAI vs. P.SUPRIYA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which