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

2) of Section 54 provides the Assessee with an option to deposit the amount of gain not appropriated towards the purchase of the house one year before the date of transfer or towards the purchase / construction of house before the due date for furnishing return of income specified under section (13((1) of the Act, in an account

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

2 years the assessee has not satisfied the primary condition laid down under section 54F. 2.5)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, the date of transfer of the property was on 25/06/2011, On the said date, the assessee is owner of flat at Bangalore acquired in March 2011 and another property which was agreed to be sold through

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

2 years the assessee has not satisfied the primary condition laid down under section 54F. 2.5)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, the date of transfer of the property was on 25/06/2011, On the said date, the assessee is owner of flat at Bangalore acquired in March 2011 and another property which was agreed to be sold through

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

2 years the assessee has not satisfied the primary condition laid down under section 54F. 2.5)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, the date of transfer of the property was on 25/06/2011, On the said date, the assessee is owner of flat at Bangalore acquired in March 2011 and another property which was agreed to be sold through

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

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction

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

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

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

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 declaring total income at ₹.33,41,590/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. After considering the details filed against 4 I.T.A. No. 1004/Chny/17 statutory notices, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold away a property

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

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

house property', has claimed deduction of 30% of the rentals u/s.24(a) . At the same time, it has also claimed depreciation on the same let-out buildings under section 32. Thus, there is a double deduction claim, which is not permitted in the Act. Further, the fact of claiming depreciation on the let-out buildings has come to the notice