VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

house property being residential accommodation the tenant had not deducted TDS on rent paid by them. If any communication had bought to my notice earlier i would have taken necessary steps to submit at that relevant point of time. 2. Non-disclosure of loan given in the Income Tax Return (ITR) In ITR-3 of AY 2018-19 the disclosure

PALANICHAMY NANTHINI DEVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Palanichamy Nanthini Devi, The Income Tax Officer, Staff Nurse Room Stanley Medical Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -17 (4), College, Chennai. Chennai – 600 001. [Pan: Axfpn-2460-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 69A and Rs.1,78,593/- under Chapter VIA. :-2-: ITA. No.:565/Chny/2025 3. It is submitted that the assessee has explanation and evidences for the above confirmation of the addition. 4. For these and such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

160\n3\n16.12.2003\n2,26,000\n4\n01.04.2004\n5,35,750\n5\n29.09.2008\n60,000\nTotal Expenses\n50,79,685\nThe AO made addition of Rs.50,79,685/- towards unexplained expenditure\nclaimed from the sale of agricultural property. Aggrieved by the addition made,\nthe assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance\nof development expenditures.\nDuring

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]

160 taxmann.com 1194 [Bang. Trib] and submits that the Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal held that interior expenses can be claimed under section 54 of the Act, where a new house 3 I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 is constructed or purchased. Further, he referred to the case law in the case of Y. Manjula Reddy v. ITO 140 taxmann.com 441 [Bang. Trib

PALANISAMY DEVI ,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

160/- which Palanisamy Devi :: 2 :: according to the assessee was sourced from company as salary, income from house property, salary as a working-partner from firm and interest income. Apart from the above, assessee had also shown agricultural income of Rs.20,35,953/-. The AO after scrutiny framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, wherein, he made an addition

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

house property are not based on truth, inclusion of the same in assessee's income would be justified. The Bombay High Court in Bastiram Narayandas Maheswari vs. CIT (1994) 117 CTR (Bom) 198 opined that where the addition on account of suppressed production has been directed by Tribunal after considering material and evidence on record, the same would be justified

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

160 Rs. Lakhs Existing No. of equity 10,010,000 Nos. shares* Value/share 311.29 Rs. *Existing No. of equity shares is based on the resolution passed by the company for the allotment of equity shares out of the share application money of Rs. 10 cr. invested by the promoters Mr.Maneesh Parmar and Mr.Sunil Khetpalia. 7.21 The documents claimed to have

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

Properties & Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. There is no information as to fair value measurement adopted to these combined financial instruments. As per information in Schedule 15, shares and debenture bonds were pledged with banks to avail certain loan or Credit facilities. As these equity instruments are also linked to debt, they ought to have been fair valued under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

160 3 16.12.2003 2,26,000 4 01.04.2004 5,35,750 5 29.09.2008 60,000 Total Expenses 50,79,685 The AO made addition of Rs.50,79,685/- towards unexplained expenditure claimed from the sale of agricultural property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

160 3 16.12.2003 2,26,000 4 01.04.2004 5,35,750 5 29.09.2008 60,000 Total Expenses 50,79,685 The AO made addition of Rs.50,79,685/- towards unexplained expenditure claimed from the sale of agricultural property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

160\n3\n16.12.2003\n2,26,000\n4\n01.04.2004\n5,35,750\n5\n29.09.2008\n60,000\nTotal Expenses\n50,79,685\nThe AO made addition of Rs.50,79,685/- towards unexplained expenditure\nclaimed from the sale of agricultural property. Aggrieved by the addition made,\nthe assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance\nof development expenditures.\nDuring

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

160\n3\n16.12.2003\n2,26,000\n4\n01.04.2004\n5,35,750\n5\n29.09.2008\n60,000\nTotal Expenses\n50,79,685\nThe AO made addition of Rs.50,79,685/- towards unexplained expenditure\nclaimed from the sale of agricultural property. Aggrieved by the addition made,\nthe assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance\nof development expenditures.\nDuring