THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) 1,50,000 (14.114.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (15.1–15.6) 1,50,000 (13.1 – 13.6) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2,81,25,000 (16.1-16.5) 3,00,000 (12.1 - 12.5) 158-169 63. We find that the additions made

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

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

Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity by two the individuals would be amendable to the provisions in Section 154 of the Act especially considering the fact that the said individuals had placed on record the relevant sale deeds before the AO vide reply dated

K.S.KAMALAKANNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, 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.1243/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Shri K.S. Kamalakannan, C/O Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, V. Income Tax, 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Company Circle Iv(4), Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai. Pan : Aacpk 5960 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property, therefore, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 4 I.T.A. No.1243/Mds/16 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer, in exercise of her power under Section 154

KUMARAVELU VARADHARAJAN @ K.VARADHARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.617/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K. The Income Tax Officer, Varadharajan, No. 11/1, Narasimma Vs. International Taxation Ii(2), Nagar, 1St Street, Kodungaiyur, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 112. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Abwpv4091P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Gopikrishna, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R

154 Taxmann 399 (Mad), wherein it was held that the where an assessee who owned a house property, sold the same and purchased another property in the name of his wife, exemption under section

SHILPI RASIWASIA ,KANCHIPURAM vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.865/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shilpi Rasiwasia, Vs. The Assistant Director Of 51, Nemili Village, Income Tax, Sriperumbudur, Cpc, Bangalore. Kanchipuram 602 105. [Pan:Adspr5809D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Carrying On Business In The Name Of M/S. Guari Wood Packers Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 31.12.2020 Admitting Total Income Of 2

house property”. Accepting the request, the assessee was allowed to file rectified return under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] by condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Assessee filed a rectified return on 13.12.2021 with a tax refund of ₹.4,07,040/-. Accordingly, the assessee received an intimation order under section 154

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

property cannot be equated to a swimming pool for Habitation purpose and since the assessee has not complied the conditions of Sec. 54 of the Act and the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concurred with the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, the assessee assailed

VIMALARANI BRITTO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2992/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Vimalarani Britto Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 13, Kasturba Nagar, Income Tax, 3Rd Main Road, Adyar, Central Circle-2(4) Chennai-600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aadpv 8816C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property income, income from other sources and thereafter income from capital gains which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act overlooking the narrow scope of the provisions in section 154

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before passing the impugned order u/s 154, the same fell in the category of an order which is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

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

154 ITD 369 (Delhi) 7. The ld.AR further submitted the Bank statement of HDFC Bank, Bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Certificate from HDFC Bank to prove that the assessee did not have any term deposit and confirmation letter from ‘Aviva Construction company for having paid Rs.40.00 Lakhs only for purchase of flat. Apart from these documents, the ld.AR stated

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

154 ITD 369 (Delhi) 7. The ld.AR further submitted the Bank statement of HDFC Bank, Bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Certificate from HDFC Bank to prove that the assessee did not have any term deposit and confirmation letter from ‘Aviva Construction company for having paid Rs.40.00 Lakhs only for purchase of flat. Apart from these documents, the ld.AR stated

C.R.VISWANATH HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

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

house property, the flat was not registered in his name till 21.03.2015. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also rejected the rectification petition 4 I.T.A. No.667/Mds/17 filed by the assessee under Section 154

M/S. SABARI ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

house property”, not under the head “income from business” by the ld. Assessing Officer as the only income received by the firm is the rental income paid by Dr.B.S.Ayyappan. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the ld.A.R submitted that the firm had taken on lease a piece of land

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].

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal in I.T.A. No. 107/Chny/2021 filed by the assessee is delayed by 579 days, whereas, the assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit for 18 months. Since the assessee has not filed any other petition

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].

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal in I.T.A. No. 107/Chny/2021 filed by the assessee is delayed by 579 days, whereas, the assessee has filed a petition for 2 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit for 18 months. Since the assessee has not filed any other petition