M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the said section clearly referred to sub section (f) to Section 269

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the said section clearly referred to sub section (f) to Section 269

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the said section clearly referred to sub section (f) to Section 269

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the said section clearly referred to sub section (f) to Section 269

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. As per the ld. Authorised Representative the said section clearly referred to sub section (f) to Section 269

ITO, CHENNAI vs. R.AISHWARYA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1120/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. R. Aishwarya, Non Corporate Ward 3(1) No.18, Raghave Veera Avenue, Chennai Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Aevpa2044K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

269/- ---------------------- Ld. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that interest of "63,98,540/- on the housing loan paid by the assessee, for the period starting from the date of purchase and ending on the date of sale of property could not be allowed as cost of acquisition/improvement. As per ld. Assessing Officer interest expenditure incurred during the period

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), CHENNAI vs. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1765/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Mr. Arvind Srinivasan Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 61, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 004. Pan: Adcpa0371R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

house property, capital gains and business of brokerage and commission. In the profit and loss account a number of expenses have been debited for which he was requested to furnish the evidences vide questionnaire dated 11.01.2013, but no evidences whatsoever have been furnished. Only the ledger accounts were furnished. Hence, 50% of the expenses on electricity charges

SMT P.D.ANURADHA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property from the Assessee after its construction, he retained such huge sums along with him as declared by him. An agreement in this regard was executed between both parties in the year 1994, between Shri Mylsamy and the Assessee but subsequently both the parties mutually agreed to cancel the agreement and to treat the advance given by Shri Mylsamy

SMT P.D.ANURADHA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property from the Assessee after its construction, he retained such huge sums along with him as declared by him. An agreement in this regard was executed between both parties in the year 1994, between Shri Mylsamy and the Assessee but subsequently both the parties mutually agreed to cancel the agreement and to treat the advance given by Shri Mylsamy

RAJESH M. BHATIA (HUF),SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property and sought details from the assessee. The assessee filed information/agreement and on examination of the same, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies with regard to BJN Hotel Ltd. and M/s. Mobivil Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, added an amount of ₹.3,82,269/- on 3 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 account of BJN Hotel

RAJESH M. BHATIA (HUF),SALEM vs. DCIT, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1911 & 1912/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh M. Bhatia (Huf), Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 389, Trichy Main Road, Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem 636 006. Salem. [Pan: Aachr9909R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 13.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Relating To Quantum Addition & Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property and sought details from the assessee. The assessee filed information/agreement and on examination of the same, the Assessing Officer found discrepancies with regard to BJN Hotel Ltd. and M/s. Mobivil Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer, accordingly, added an amount of ₹.3,82,269/- on 3 I.T.A. Nos.1911 & 1912/Chny/24 account of BJN Hotel

ITO, CHENNAI vs. M/S. R.P. USHA ENTERPRISES, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2778/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, V. M/S. R P Usha Enterprises, Non-Corporate Ward – 2(3), No.39, Habibullah Road, Chennai – 34 T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaifr0955R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2017

269/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. AO for wrongly claiming the “income of house property” under the head “income from business”. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm filed its return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 admitting Nil income. Initially the return

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Vijay Gupta decided on 20.03.2016 referred to the decision of the :-7-: Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 367 and the Apex Court in the said decision has held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance included

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

269. We find that following the above decision of the Mumbai :- 12 -: ‘E’ Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ADIT Vs. TII Team Telecom International ITA Nos. 3939/Mum/2010 order dated 26.8.2011 has held as under: “17. It is not even revenue's case that any of these rights have been transferred by the assessee, on the facts

GEBRIAL DE PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-23(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr.Gabriel De Prasad, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.10, 10Th Cross Street, Non-Corporate Ward- Heritage Jayendra Nagar, 23(4)(I/C),Tambaram Sembakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 073. [Pan: Adupg3864D] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr.I.Dinesh, Adv. अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Gurubashyam, Jcit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28 .11.2019 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

house property, which led to re-opening of the concluded assessment by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 147 :- 3 -: of the 1961 Act. Originally return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by Revenue by invoking provisions of Section 143(3) read with Section

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

269$$/269T. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is reproduced as under: 5. We also find that the ld.AO has not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act, which is sine qua non before the ld. JCIT proceeded to initiate penalty proceedings