M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

house property’ instead of ‘income from business’. 9. We note that the issue in dispute is no more res integra, since the similar issue under the identical set of facts and circumstances in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 has already been decided in favour of the assessee in No.511/Chny/2024 dated 11.06.2025 by holding as under

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the order of the AO is not erroneous and is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Your appellants therefore submit that the order of the Pr. CIT be quashed. 1.3. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact

SHRI.N.M.VEERAIYAN,ERODE vs. PCIT , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.533/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri N.M. Veeraiyan, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 333, Saveetha Hospital, Income Tax, Brough Road, Erode 638 001. Circle I, Erode. [Pan: Acnpv1294N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Coimbatore-1, Coimbatore, Dated 23.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017- 18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property claimed under section 57 of the Act is not allowable and requires to be 4 I.T.A. No.533/Chny/22 disallowed. Since the above issue was not considered in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the same was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

house property other than the New Asset on which investment is made thus making the Appellant eligible for the deduction u/ s 54 F of the Act. 7. The CIT erred in relying only the property tax arrears calculation made by the corporation authorities to conclude the existence of building, while doing so he went wrong in completely brushing aside

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before passing the impugned order u/s 154, the same fell in the category of an order which is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

property held under trust\" includes a business undertaking\nso held. Therefore, profits derived from a business undertaking held under\ntrust also qualify for the exemption, subject to fulfilment of other\nconditions. Section 11(4A) thereafter stipulates two conditions for the\nclaim of exemption of business income u/s 11(1); one being that the\nbusiness is incidental to the attainment

SEVUGAN PETHAPERUMAL,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1196/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sevugan Pethaperumal, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.41, First Main Street, Tax, Narayanapuram West, Madurai-1, Madurai, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-625 014. [Pan: Afjpp5984J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Tarun, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

house property and was wrongly offered as income from other sources. While doing so, reliance was placed upon certain judicial precedents on the subject. In para 11 of his order, he concluded that the Ld.AO has failed to do requisite enquiries and verification into the issue and hence the order passed by him falls into the category of the same

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

263 passed to be collateral proceedings. In this order the Tribunal has taken note of several ratio’s of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the primary proceedings are non-est in law or void on the The Chennai Co-op. Societies- Employees Co-op. T & C Society Ltd :: 10 :: ground

THIRUVENGADAMUDALIAR RAMALINGAM,ARNI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1830/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thiruvengadamudaliar Ramalingam The Principal Commissioner Of No.4, Big Sayakara Street, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Kosapalayam, Chennai-1. Arni – 632 301. [Pan: Aacpr 1690P]

section 263 of the Act. We do not find merit in the Ld AR’s argument as the AO has reduced income from house property

SHANMUGANATHAN RAJASEKARAN,COIMBATORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1897/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 263 which is against the provisions of law. Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran :- 3 -: 8. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned PCIT failed to establish how the Assessment order Passed U/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of the revenue.” 4. The assessee is an Orthopedic Surgeon specializing in Trauma and accident surgery, joint replacement

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

property and registered in the name M/s.Ravi Construction company in the year 1968 to 1970 and the assessee inherited the same upon the demise of the father in the year 2001. The sale took place through registered sale documents numbering six and all registered on 7-3-2017. The value of land and building sold by the assessee

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

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

263 is quashed.” 19. The Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in DCIT v. B.J.D. Paper Products [2012] 20 taxmann.com 314 (Lucknow) has held as under (relevant portion): - “8.6 We have already discussed hereinabove that the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT (supra ) is also in favour of 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

T V SUNDARAM IYENGAR & SONS LIMITED,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2, , MADURAI

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1803/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-2014. M/S. T.V. Sundram Iyengar & The Deputy Commissioner Sons Private Limited, Vs. Of Income Tax, No.7B, Tvs Building, Corporate Circle 2, West Veli Street. Madurai. Madurai 625 001. Pan: Aabct 0159K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit

house property which is not permissible under the law. The Assessing Officer failed to examine this claim with reference to section 72(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, such lack of enquiry and allowance of incorrect claim renders the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Submission with regard to the ‘learned PCIT

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

house scientific research and\ndevelopment facility. The assessee also filed the required form\nNo.3CK for approval before the prescribed authority and the form\n3CL has to be issued by the prescribed authority to the Department.\nThese details have been sought in the notice u/s.142(1) dated\n21.12.2020 issued by the AO (Paper Book page No.211) in its\nquestionnaire

MURUGESAN SHANTHI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO,WARD-1, THANJAVUR

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2021 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2016-17

section 263 of the Act. As no reply was filed by the assessee in response to the notice dated 02-03-2021, another notice dated 09-03-2021 was issued to the assessee by the Ld. PCIT. 6. In response to the notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 09-03- 2021 the assessee filed written submissions dated

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

263 of the Act In\ncategory of cases falling under clause (d) and (f), appropriate action under section\n147 of the Act can be taken to tax the income which has escaped assessment or\nhad remained to be taxed. There can be situations where an item has been dealt\nwith in the body of the order of assessment

R.S. THAMILSELVUN ,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 312/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri R.S. Thamilselvun, The Acit, 58, Palayam Bazaar, V. Circle-1, Woraiyur, Trichy Tiruchirapalli – 620 003. Pan: Abqpt 9634A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Vasanthan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2023

House Property 2. On above issue(s), no addition is made.” I.T.A. No.312/CHNY/2023 3 The PCIT, on verification of records noted that the assessee has incurred expenditure of interest paid to NBFCs amounting to Rs.41,83,817/- without deduction of TDS. Hence, he revised the assessment framed by AO and directed the AO to verify the applicability of provisions