DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house 3 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 property for `1,12,00,001/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. As the due date for filing of return was nearing, the assessee deposited long term capital gain in Capital Gains Account Scheme on 26.07.2010 and claimed the benefit of long term capital gain exemption. Whereas, the Assessing Officer called

ROSHAN DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

1) r. W.S 2( 42A). Hence the AO is directed to withdraw the cost of indexation given in the assessment order. 4.6 Exemption u/s 54EC: With respect to Indexation, I agree with the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in ITA No 88/CIT(A)-16/2013-14 dated 03.10.2016 that as the asset is treated as short term capital asset, deduction

DEEP DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

1) r. W.S 2( 42A). Hence the AO is directed to withdraw the cost of indexation given in the assessment order. 4.6 Exemption u/s 54EC: With respect to Indexation, I agree with the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in ITA No 88/CIT(A)-16/2013-14 dated 03.10.2016 that as the asset is treated as short term capital asset, deduction

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

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

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

150 Taxmann.com 40 (SC). 37. The ld. DR further submits that the assessee’s claim that accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act for school construction supports charitable intent is irrelevant, the exemption under section 11 of the Act requires charitable activities and the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that the commercial activity made accumulation immaterial. 31 I.T.A. Nos.1667

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

150 Taxmann.com 40 (SC). 37. The Id. DR further submits that the assessee's claim that accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act for school construction supports charitable intent is irrelevant, the exemption under section 11 of the Act requires charitable activities and the Id. CIT(A) rightly held that the commercial activity made accumulation immaterial. 38. She vehemently

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

house property income and huge long term capital gain and even after receiving notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed her return of income admitting only ₹. 2,15,130/- as income as against income admitted during the course of assessment proceedings of ₹.1,92,62,150

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

MR. THIRUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

150/- thereby restricted the addition to Rs.56,050/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the above order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. Disallowance u/s.54F is as follows: 3. The assessee sold a residential property at Triplicane High Road, Chennai, on 29.06.2015 for Rs.3,00,00,000/- (his share) and claimed exemption u/s.54F

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

150,000,000) Total Increase in Brand Value from 01.01.2010 to 31.02.2010 (3 months) 100,000,000 Net decrease in brand value for the F.Y. 2009-10 (50,000,000) The above computations are rejected as being overly simplistic and based on erroneous logic as well as the rounded off data of one Brand Value organization (Interbrand) without consideration

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

150,000,000) Total Increase in Brand Value from 01.01.2010 to 31.02.2010 (3 months) 100,000,000 Net decrease in brand value for the F.Y. 2009-10 (50,000,000) The above computations are rejected as being overly simplistic and based on erroneous logic as well as the rounded off data of one Brand Value organization (Interbrand) without consideration

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

150,000,000) Total Increase in Brand Value from 01.01.2010 to 31.02.2010 (3 months) 100,000,000 Net decrease in brand value for the F.Y. 2009-10 (50,000,000) The above computations are rejected as being overly simplistic and based on erroneous logic as well as the rounded off data of one Brand Value organization (Interbrand) without consideration

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

150,000,000) Total Increase in Brand Value from 01.01.2010 to 31.02.2010 (3 months) 100,000,000 Net decrease in brand value for the F.Y. 2009-10 (50,000,000) The above computations are rejected as being overly simplistic and based on erroneous logic as well as the rounded off data of one Brand Value organization (Interbrand) without consideration

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

150,000,000) Total Increase in Brand Value from 01.01.2010 to 31.02.2010 (3 months) 100,000,000 Net decrease in brand value for the F.Y. 2009-10 (50,000,000) The above computations are rejected as being overly simplistic and based on erroneous logic as well as the rounded off data of one Brand Value organization (Interbrand) without consideration

GUNAPALAN MALLINATHAN,RANIPET vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 62 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 31.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 03.03.2025. The assessee has filed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. SUCHITRA MOHANLAL, CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2960/Chny/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Acit, Vs Smt. Suchitra Mohanlal, Central Circle 1(1), No.16, Casa Major Road, Chennai – 34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaups8228G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

150/- ============ Since the assessee had purchased the new residential property not out of the sale proceeds of her long term assets, the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of deduction U/s.54/54F of the Act. The Ld.AO further held that in any case the assessee is not entitled for the benefit U/s.54 of the Act because the long term asset sold