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

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

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

KARUNAMOORTHI KAVITHA,DHARMAPURI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1732/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karunamoorthi Kavitha, Assistant Commissioner Of No.10A, Vijaya Hospital, V. Income Tax, Pennagaram Main Road, Opp Central Circle, Madheswara Theatre, Salem – 636 007. Dharmapuri – 636 701. [Pan: Amfpk-6223-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024

property was made by the appellant is one of the sources from the gift received from her mother and brother. 6. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate Sec.68 are not invocable in the case of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. For that Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate

PAZHANIVEL THANGARASU,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, CUDDALORE

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

section 69A are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the explanation along with evidences furnished by the appellant regarding the source of cash deposit to the tune of Rs.40,00,250/-. 9. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

house at Trichy viii. Interest income and income from other sources (Brokerage / Commission) The AO noted the fact that the assessee has maintained detailed books of accounts for these lines of his business activities. The AO for assessment year 2010-11 noted that there is sudden increase in cash deposit on various dates during financial year 2009-10 relevant

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

house at Trichy viii. Interest income and income from other sources (Brokerage / Commission) The AO noted the fact that the assessee has maintained detailed books of accounts for these lines of his business activities. The AO for assessment year 2010-11 noted that there is sudden increase in cash deposit on various dates during financial year 2009-10 relevant

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

house at Trichy viii. Interest income and income from other sources (Brokerage / Commission) The AO noted the fact that the assessee has maintained detailed books of accounts for these lines of his business activities. The AO for assessment year 2010-11 noted that there is sudden increase in cash deposit on various dates during financial year 2009-10 relevant