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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1283/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT, CC-1(4), Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. No. 31, 2nd Main Road, Shriram No. 46, Investigation Building, Income Tax Office, Nungambakkam, Vs. House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1283/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT, CC-1(4), Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. No. 31, 2nd Main Road, Shriram No. 46, Investigation Building, Income Tax Office, Nungambakkam, Vs. House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

2 ITA 1172-1273-1173-1283/Chny/2025 SPL Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1283/Chny/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT, CC-1(4), Sriprop Properties Pvt. Ltd. No. 31, 2nd Main Road, Shriram No. 46, Investigation Building, Income Tax Office, Nungambakkam, Vs. House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr

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

V S TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the VS Trust :: 2 :: Act is contrary to the facts and the law and, therefore, not tenable in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in not granting personal hearing via video conferencing to the Appellant despite Appellant’s request and accordingly impugned Order is violative

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

250 dated 09.03.2020 passed by CIT(A), Coimbatore.\n:- 2 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\n2.0 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine the grounds\nof appeal raised by the appellant. The appellant had originally filed\ngrounds of appeal which were out rightly descriptive and narrative in\nnature. The appellant, vide order dated 30.11.2023, was directed to file\nto file concise grounds

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The legal heir of the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai dated 12.01.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1059642460(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances

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

250 of the Act, upholding the addition, be set aside; b. The activities of the Appellant be rightly treated as educational/ charitable under Section 2(15) of the Act and the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act be restored; c. The additions made to the income of the Appellant amounting to ₹61,15,273/- be deleted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

250. It was in this commercial and financial context that\nthe Appellant was therefore able to obtain the investment\nfrom the foreign investors at the price of Rs.250 per share.\n7.5.9 Appellant stated that the share premium from foreign\ninvestors has been received based on the Shareholders\nAgreement. A Shareholders Agreement dated 8th February\n2007 and a Supplemental Shareholders Agreement

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

250/-. This property was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance vide settlement deed dated 04.11.2013 No.5847/2013 settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao. The said property was equally settled in the name of the assessee, Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni in equal 1/4th share for each of the co-owners. The assessee filed

SHRI SURESH ALLADA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -I(I), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

250/-. This property was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance vide settlement deed dated 04.11.2013 No.5847/2013 settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao. The said property was equally settled in the name of the assessee, Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni in equal 1/4th share for each of the co-owners. The assessee filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

250. It was in this commercial and financial context that the Appellant was therefore able to obtain the investment from the foreign investors at the price of Rs.250 per share.\n7.5.9 Appellant stated that the share premium from foreign investors has been received based on the Shareholders Agreement. A Shareholders Agreement dated 8th February 2007 and a Supplemental Shareholders Agreement

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

Housing and urban development (UD4)(2) of Govt. of Tamil Nadu in which the land is classified as mixed residential zone by local and municipal notification in Government Order but a copy of the order has not been provided during the assessment proceedings. Further the land is more than 8 kms from municipal limits to qualify as a capital asset

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 Kesavan Vanithamani :- 2 -: 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law in as much as it is a non- speaking order on the aspect of the Appellant's claim of exemption

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. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

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

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

GUNAPALAN MALLINATHAN,RANIPET vs. ITO, WARD-2,, VELLORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2020-21. 2. There is a delay of 62 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal ought to have been filed before ITAT on or before 31.12.2024. However, the appeal was filed belatedly on 03.03.2025. The assessee has filed