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. The AO held that same expenditure again can't be allowed as deduction against professional receipts. ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 (AYs 2016-17 & 2015-16) Varadappan Natarajan/ V. Natarajan (Individual) :: 10 :: 7.3.4 During appeal proceedings, appellant claimed that the AO has allowed interest payment for Assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14, Rs.7,91,581/-, Rs.5

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 17(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house property or under the head income from other sources. 2. In case, such maintenance charges collected by the assessee are assessed as income from other sources whether the expenses claimed by the assessee are allowable u/s 57’’. The ld. PCIT on the first issue directed the Assessing Officer has under by holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

housing and therefore it should be regarded as building used for business purposes. The AO following the orders passed by his predecessors held that, the depreciation rate allowable on residential buildings as per the Income-tax Rules was 5% and not 10% and that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had also held that

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.

193 ITR 186 (All) , the Allahabad High Court held that where the assessee had failed to prove the source of investment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense. Le, book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-\n\"A \"jurisdictional fact\" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal\nor an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is\none on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a\ncourt, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

house R&D units and approval for the expenses granted by the DSIR is based on certain guidelines laid down by DSIR which includes presence of independent infrastructure, adequate technically qualified manpower, well defined time bound R&D programs and projects, exclusion of certain activities from R&D as a negative list, maintenance of separate books of accounts, third part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

house R&D units and approval for the expenses granted by the DSIR is based on certain guidelines laid down by DSIR which includes presence of independent infrastructure, adequate technically qualified manpower, well defined time bound R&D programs and projects, exclusion of certain activities from R&D as a negative list, maintenance of separate books of accounts, third part

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdi or an assumes

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdi or an assumes

DCIT, CC2(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

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

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), 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.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

193 and the decisions in the case of Indian Bank v. Manilal Govindji Khona (2015) 3 SCC 712. The Mumbai bench also held that if order of assessment passed u/s 147 of the Act was nullity in the eyes of law then that order cannot be revised by invoking powers u/s 263 of the Act by CIT. The Mumbai Bench