GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

properties, tenant details and rental agreements are not mandatory, as per the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. 5) The disallowance of interest on the ground of non-submissions of rent receipts is contrary to law; as deemed rental income is taxable irrespective of actual tenancy. 6) The CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy

PROTECTRON ELECTROMECH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.403/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Protectron Electromech The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 9, Athipattan Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2), Street, Mount Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcp1103B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 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) 3, Chennai Dated 28.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In The Appeal Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under The Head “Income From Other Source”.

house property at ₹.3,64,60,058/- and for that property, the assessee spent common lighting by using generator facility and earned power charges, but it was utilized for common areas. Against the disallowance of ₹.1,69,503/-, before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee pleaded that it received power/electricity charges towards common area facilities. While confirming the disallowance

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

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

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

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

R.VASUDEVAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 542/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Shri R. Vasudevan, The Assistant Commissioner Of Flat No. R-35, Tnhb Complex, T.S. Vs. Income Tax, Krishna Nagar, Mogappair, Central Circle I(1) Chennai 600 050. Chennai. [Pan:Aappv1970J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Ms. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2017 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) 18, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property at ₹.8,53,421/-, capital gain from sale of land at ₹.16,24,088/-, income from other sources at ₹.4,04,533/- and also declared loss from business of real estate at ₹.1,08,212/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 04.09.2014 was served

TR PCHAMUTHU NOW KNOWN AS TR PAARIVENDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

section 23 of the Act. We, therefore, in the interest of justice set aside the impugned order and restore the valuation issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide it afresh in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard." 14. The assessee did not furnish any further evidence

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

234C of the Act. I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 7 of 21 [9] We will take up all these grounds of appeal as all these grounds are on the same issue and interconnected. In substance, in our considered view, the questions actually required to be adjudicated by us are as follows: - Whether the CIT(A) ought

GOPALSAMY,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The appeals stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1384/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1385/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1386/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Gopalsamy Vs. Acit No.3B, 3Rd Floor New No.27 Dc/Ac Central Cir 1(2) East Street, Krishna Apartments, Chennai Raghava Reddy Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan: Bjtpg 4193H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

sections 234A, 234B and 234C. 3. The Ld. AR advanced arguments on legal grounds as well as on merits with the help of documents as well as by relying upon various judicial decisions, the copies of which have been placed on record. It has been submitted that the additions have been made merely on the basis of statement and loose

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

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

234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments assailing the impugned additions on legal grounds as well as on merits. Reliance has been placed on various judicial pronouncements, the copies of which have been placed on record. The Ld. Standing Counsel, Shri Karthick Ranganathan, controverted the arguments put forth by Ld. AR and similarly relied

HANSA VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3443/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Hansa Vision India P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 19, Wheatcroft Road, Vs. Income Tax, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Corporate Circle 2(2), [Pan:Aabct3770E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 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) 6, Chennai, Dated 29.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The First Ground & Ground No. 12 Raised In The Appeal Are General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

234C of the ct on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/ 115JB of the Act and therefore, the aforesaid decision has no impact on the issue involved in this appeal. Similarly, in MAXOPP Investment Ltd., supra the Supreme Court has dealt with Section 14A of the Act and has not dealt with Section

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7, Thirunavukarasu Street, Perambur, Chennai-600 011. The AO issued notice dated 29.12.2015 u/s.153A of the 1961 Act to the assessee which was duly served on the assessee on 01.01.2016. The assessee filed

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7, Thirunavukarasu Street, Perambur, Chennai-600 011. The AO issued notice dated 29.12.2015 u/s.153A of the 1961 Act to the assessee which was duly served on the assessee on 01.01.2016. The assessee filed

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7, Thirunavukarasu Street, Perambur, Chennai-600 011. The AO issued notice dated 29.12.2015 u/s.153A of the 1961 Act to the assessee which was duly served on the assessee on 01.01.2016. The assessee filed