ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

property at bearing New Door No.4, Vasan Street, T. Nagar Chennai from Mr. P. Mahaveer Chand Jain & Mrs. Santosh Kumari for a consideration of ₹. 11,00,00,000/- and after including stamp duty and registration fees, the total cost for purchase of both the houses comes to ₹.18,49,40,160/- and claimed deduction under section

ITO NON CORP WARD 14 (4), CHENNAI vs. SMT. B VATHSALA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 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)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

property at bearing New Door No.4, Vasan Street, T. Nagar Chennai from Mr. P. Mahaveer Chand Jain & Mrs. Santosh Kumari for a consideration of ₹. 11,00,00,000/- and after including stamp duty and registration fees, the total cost for purchase of both the houses comes to ₹.18,49,40,160/- and claimed deduction under section

RAMANUJAM ELANCHELIYAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 20 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 211/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property was Rs. 2,56,40,160/- and consequently erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider cost of investment for computing exemption u/s. 54F of the Act at Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as against Rs. 2,56,40,160/- The existing ground number 5 may be renumbered as ground number 7. “ 3. The brief fact is that

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

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

section 54F of the IT Act and found to be very much incomplete, emphasis supplied and utilization of land is very minimal for the building, leaving a vast area of land untilized. Hence it is evident that the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of Rs. 2.60 crores :-7-: (which is the cost of 1.25 acres of nanja land itself

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

property tax paid by the assessee to the Vadakadampadi Panchayat as the proof for existence of residential house in the land purchased by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars. The assessee has furnished all the details of the investment made out of the sale proceeds of the land and claimed exemption

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

160, Thiruvenkatasamy Road, Non-Corporate Circle -2, Vs. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AEWPA-8469-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07-09-2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06-12-2022 Date of Pronouncement

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

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

ACIT, VELLORE vs. K.SUHAIL AHMED, AMBUR

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.441/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

160 9. Nadeem Leathers 10. Nadeem Prime Tanners ` 3,71,700 ` 3,56,407 11. Zanoor International TOTAL ` ` ` 32,91,974 ` It is pertinent to note that the assessee in his reply dated 4.2.2013 admitted the above said amount as his income since he could not persuade the creditors to confirm the balance outstanding. 3 I.T.A. No. 441/Mds/2014

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Page 39 of 94 to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- The Id.AR submitted that upon verification of records

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

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Rs. 15,79,800/- AABHM8414M- MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Rs.1,30,18,054/- Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.1,87,62,010/- to be considered as rental advance/deposit Rs.57,43,956/- Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- Page 39 of 94 AABHM8414M-MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification