THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

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

255 ITR 220. In Vipan Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that assessment proceedings come to an end and the matter becomes final the moment there was no scrutiny notice within stipulated period of time. "..... Another important change incorporated in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is that

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

255 ITR 220. In Vipan Khanna v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that assessment proceedings come to an end and the matter becomes final the moment there was no scrutiny notice within stipulated period of time. "..... Another important change incorporated in sub- section (2) of section 143 of the Act is that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

4 :: the income at Rs. 837,17,84,527/-. Thereafter, a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company on 20.11.2019 and pursuant to it, inter-alia the assessment for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 was re-opened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act and after hearing the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

4 :: the income at Rs. 837,17,84,527/-. Thereafter, a survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was carried out at the premises of the assessee company on 20.11.2019 and pursuant to it, inter-alia the assessment for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 was re-opened by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act and after hearing the assessee

MEERA HUSSAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.501/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Meera Hussain Pr. Cit बनाम/ 19, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-8. Vs. Mannady,Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahpm-9324-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(Ca) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assail The Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 (Pr. Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2021 In The Matter An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 14-11-2017. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8, Passed U/S.263, With Reference No.: Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/ 1031753147(1), Dated 25.03.2021, Is Against The Facts Of The Case Weight Of Evidence On Record & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons:-

section 263. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Hon'ble PCIT, Chennai-8 is against the provisions of the Act as the original Order cannot be treated as erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of revenue and is completely unsustainable in law.” 2. The Registry has noted delay of 380 days in the appeal

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI vs. ANJLALI FOUNDATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

property to the developer, the assessee :-3-: owned only 25 cents or half acre as against one acre as per the condition laid down in section 80IB(10), the assessee’s P &L a/c shown that on the gross sale value of Rs. 4,07,53,750/-, only bank charges of Rs. 1,625/- was debited. Since, no other expenses

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered