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/- on protective basis Though the A.O. did not write protective basis but stayed the recovery proceedings as the same issue was pending before CIT(A). 5.1.5 Timeline of the transaction and undisputed facts are as under. - 10.10.1971 Properties were acquired on 10.10.1971 through settlement deed. ii. 12.10.2008 The appellant entered into JDA with A K Properties Promoters (AK hereafter

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act. :-2-: I.T.A. No.1208/Mds/2015 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds: 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to the computation of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale of property of the appellant, and situate at No. 137, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi

ARAVA SUBBA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) 2. The substantive ground raised by the assessee that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the findings of the Assessing Officer on self occupied house property assessed u/s.23(1) of the Act treated as deemed let out on estimated annual value

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’2.1 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in denying claim for exemption u/s. 54F of the IT Act. 2.2 The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed

PON MANIBASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. CHE-W-(105)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2534/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2020-21

house property loss amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. Pon Manibaskaran :: 3 :: 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), before whom assessee brought to his notice that he was not given proper opportunity by the AO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee also brought to his notice certain incidents like the AO issued inter

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2.‘’ The ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of "51,76,378/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the claim towards deduction u/s.54F made by the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2. 01. ‘’On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and, in law the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order dated 4th February, 2015 of the Income Tax Officer International Taxation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. D.JAYARAMAN, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1398/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

properties purchased from Balaji Premraj and Maheswaran & Uma Maheswaran is for business purpose though it contains buildings at dilapidated stage. In view of the above, it is held that the assessee was owning only one house as on the I.T.A.No. 1398/13 :- 6 -: date of acquiring second residential house and accordingly, he is eligible for deduction u/s 54F from the capital

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI D. RAVIKUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘’the Act’’). The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- 2. ‘’2.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow exemption to the assessee under Sec.54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee was the owner

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

house property and allow deduction under Section 24 of the Act. 11. The next ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

6. The second issue, which is agitated by Revenue before the tribunal vide Ground No. 3.1 to 3.3 raised in memo of appeal filed with tribunal, is with respect to disallowance of Rs. 8,78,08,404/- under Section 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act made by the A.O against which the assessee filed first appeal with learned

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

250 passed by NFAC, Delhi and assessee vide CO No.56/Chny/2024 for AY 2015- 16 has contested order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062081250 dated 06.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi for AY- 2015-16. For the purposes of convenience all the aboves appeals are taken by way of this common order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

250 passed by NFAC, Delhi and assessee vide CO No.56/Chny/2024 for AY 2015- 16 has contested order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062081250 dated 06.03.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[NFAC], Delhi for AY- 2015-16. For the purposes of convenience all the aboves appeals are taken by way of this common order

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

250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled and justice rendered. 4. Brief facts are that the search u/s 132 of Income Tax Act (‘Act’ in short) was conducted in the residential premises of Shri.V.Natarajan at 64-C, Rotary Nagar, Rasipuram and simultaneously the search u/s 132 of the Act was also carried

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

250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled and justice rendered. 4. Brief facts are that the search u/s 132 of Income Tax Act (‘Act’ in short) was conducted in the residential premises of Shri.V.Natarajan at 64-C, Rotary Nagar, Rasipuram and simultaneously the search u/s 132 of the Act was also carried