MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28.12.2018, in the status of Resident, is ab initio void. 6.3 It is noted from the submissions furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that the assessment made in the status of 'resident' by the AO is not sustainable by law, as the appellant resides

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28.12.2018, in the status of Resident, is ab initio void. 6.3 It is noted from the submissions furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that the assessment made in the status of 'resident' by the AO is not sustainable by law, as the appellant resides

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

144,61,67,768 Housing Loan Current Maturities of 45,64,94,560 32,71,36,605 Mortgage / Other Loans Other Loans & Advances (Unsecured, considered good unless otherwise stated) Advances recoverable 15,09,250 2,33,18,972 in cash or in Kind Loan to Employees 36,02,637 19,90,772 Travel Advance

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

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

property and provision of section 54F were/are applicable to all other assets, not being a residential house. In JR Subramaya Bhat (supra), Karnataka High Court noticed language section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the date of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. RAJKUMARI , CHENNAI

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

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains claimed under the head ‘capital gain’ and deductions claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act. We noted that the assessment order in this case was framed by AO only on 20.12.2019 but it was under mistaken notion or mistaken belief or may be under new technical effect of cut paste has pasted the relevant assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property as business income raised by the Revenue. CO No.56 /Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2015-16 8.0 Through its CO No.56 the assessee has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148. It has been contended that as the proceedings are invalid the consequent assessment order would fail. It is the case of the assessee that notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property as business income raised by the Revenue. CO No.56 /Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2015-16 8.0 Through its CO No.56 the assessee has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148. It has been contended that as the proceedings are invalid the consequent assessment order would fail. It is the case of the assessee that notice

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

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

SHRI P. KAREEM GANI,,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (2),, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2577/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri P. Kareem Gani, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. No. 17, Nadar Lane, Ward 1(2), Old Karur Bye Pass Road, Trichy. Chinthamani, Trichy 620 002. [Pan: Aacpk6068Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 143(3) of the Act, by assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.10,98,144/- after determining income from business at ₹.10,73,228/-.On appeal the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the restriction of claim of depreciation on the hotel building and consequently confirmed the addition quantified the computation of taxable income of the assessee. 3. On being

SUDHA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

house property and held the source for the said 5 I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/24 immovable property was explained, inspite of which, the ld. CIT(A), without considering the same, remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration, in our opinion, is not justified. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the addition on the basis

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

V.R.USHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mrs. V.R. Usha, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.7, New No.15, Dutch Village V. Business Ward - Xv (1), 2A, Maharaja Surya Road, Chennai - 600 034. Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Ablpu 7306 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property along with others, it was found by the Mumbai Bench that joint ownership is different from absolute ownership. Ownership of a residential house means ownership to 3 I.T.A. No.2288/Mds/15 the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the joint ownership of a residential house cannot be a reason to deny exemption under Section

MRS. BALU SUGUNALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6),, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued summon under section

MR. PALANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CIRLCE(OSD)-1,, TRICHY

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued summon under section

MRS. BALU SUGUNALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

144 of the Act dated 29.12.2019. On perusal of the assessment order as well as impugned order, we note that there was no assistance from the assessee to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as hearing notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). We also note that the Assessing Officer issued summon under section

G.P.SAVITHRI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. G.P. Savithri, The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 4, New No. 7, Strotten Vs. Non Corporate Ward 6(3) Muthiah Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 6. Chennai 600 079. [Pan:Bdips8011B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. Hemalatha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 17.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case. 2.1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Concluding That Transfer Of The Property Took Place This Year; When A Writ Petition Challenging That Is Pending Before The High Court.

house property for the said assessment year and also I don't have any income for that year. Hence I have not filed my Returns. .." 4 I.T.A. No.6/Chny/17 Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 24.09.2014 and in response to notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Again, the case was posted