C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

house property. The Tribunal however, allowed the claim of the Assessee. It was held that the property purchased by the Assessee was a single unit and used for her own residence, exemption was therefore, allowable for such ::7 :: I.T.A. No.1023/Chny/2017 transaction under section 54). The amendment made to Section 54 by the Finance (No.2) Act of 2014 was applicable only

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 251(1) (a) of the Act, has been omitted with the "power to set aside" or "examining the issue afresh" effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 2.2)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that there was no pucca sale deed conveying the house property

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 251(1) (a) of the Act, has been omitted with the "power to set aside" or "examining the issue afresh" effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 2.2)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that there was no pucca sale deed conveying the house property

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 251(1) (a) of the Act, has been omitted with the "power to set aside" or "examining the issue afresh" effect from 01.06.2001 as per Finance Act 2001. 2.2)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that there was no pucca sale deed conveying the house property

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ACCEL LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ACCEL LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ACCEL LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Page 39 of 94 to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- The Id.AR submitted that upon verification of records

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Rs. 15,79,800/- AABHM8414M- MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

House, N.S.C. Bose Corporate Circle-5(1), Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai. Chennai – 600 001. PAN: AADCP 7827J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Philip George, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश

ASHOK HARRIS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1004/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Ashok Harris, The Deputy Commissioner Of #8, 1St Cross Street, Vs. Income Tax, Seethammal Extension, Salary Circle Iv, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabph3056N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Vijay Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 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) 4, Chennai, Dated 11.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Disallowing The Deduction U/S 54F Claimed By The Appellant In The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Amounting To A Sum Of Rs.52,70,514. 2

house property for claiming exemption from capital gain was verified, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had put a construction for ₹.20,58,713/- on a land which was purchased in the year 2006. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that a part of sale consideration was utilized for clear the loan taken for purchasing the above mentioned

M/S ALPHA REALITY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1706/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Alpha Reality Acit No.1-A, 4Th Floor, Jhava Plaza, Non-Corporate Circle-3, बनाम/ Vs. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajfa-8210-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-11-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

house property. In the last Balance Sheet, the assessee does not have any debtors. The assessee failed to substantiate that the conditions of Sec.36(2) were duly fulfilled so as to lay claim on deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). It also emerges that the assessee has advances sum of Rs.435 Lacs to three joint owners and the transaction, apparently

FLSMITH MINERALS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed partly

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1279/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Flsmidth Minerals P Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Since Merged With Flsmidthpvt. Ltd.) Vs. Company Circle –Ii(1), Flsmidth House, Chennai – 34. 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai – 600 103. [Pan: Aaacf 1122D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shrig. Baskar, Advocate अपीलाथ&क'ओरसे/Appellant By *+यथ&क'ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Jcit

251/- on those factory buildings also, as if it was used for the assessee's business. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order held that since the rental income is offered to tax under the head income from 'house property' , the assessee is not eligible to claim depreciation on such let out buildings and disallowed the assessee's claim

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Rs.1,30,18,054/- Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.1,87,62,010/- to be considered as rental advance/deposit Rs.57,43,956/- Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- Page 39 of 94 AABHM8414M-MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification

SUDHA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

house property and held the source for the said 5 I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/24 immovable property was explained, inspite of which, the ld. CIT(A), without considering the same, remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for his consideration, in our opinion, is not justified. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the addition on the basis

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. MOHAMED HASSAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

house I.T.A. No. 2244/Chny/2018 4 property. Considering the contention of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief on the disallowance. Aggrieved by the relief given by the ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO in terms of calling for a remand report in respect of documentary evidence and details furnished