DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

sections": ["23(1)", "23(5)", "143(3)", "144B", "270A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "24(b)", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "270A(9)", "270A(8)", "270A(3)", "270A(6)(b)", "143(1)"], "issues": "Whether the addition of deemed income from house property

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

house property. 18. However, the said submission of the assessee came to be rejected by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows: “Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23(5) of the Act, under which the Assessing Officer deemed rental income from unsold flats classified by the appellant as stock-in-trade

S.SAROJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Saroja, Deputy Commissioner Of Door No. 47, Pandian Street, V. Income Tax, Sankaran Avenue, Velachery, Non Corporate Circle – 19(1), Chennai – 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Baeps-1299-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

8,40,000/-. In respect of interest income, the assessee on bonafide belief declared interest income under the head income from business. However, when the AO noticed above mistakes, he has fairly agreed and paid taxes on annual value of the house property and also accepted assessment of interest income under the head other sources. Therefore, it cannot be said

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [PAN: AAGCA5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during the search at Kolkata and Coimbatore containing details of unaccounted cash receipts and payments. In addition to this, section 23 of the act also gives a formula to determine the "Annual Value" of the property. In my considered view, this addition was not made

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during the search at Kolkata and Coimbatore containing details of unaccounted cash receipts and payments. In addition to this, section 23 of the act also gives a formula to determine the "Annual Value" of the property. In my considered view, this addition was not made

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during the search at Kolkata and Coimbatore containing details of unaccounted cash receipts and payments. In addition to this, section 23 of the act also gives a formula to determine the "Annual Value" of the property. In my considered view, this addition was not made

SHRI S MANOHARAN ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.616 To 619/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Mr.S.Manoharan, V. The Dy. Commissioner- G-3, Saratha Krupa Appt., Of Income Tax, No.55 (Old 47), Naidu Road, Central Circle-2, Sivananda Colony, Coimbatore. Coimbatore-641 012. [Pan:Aedpm 7539 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.N. Arjunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 22.02.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2023

house property" on the basis of extracts of the cash books which were seized during the search at Kolkata and Coimbatore containing details of unaccounted cash receipts and payments. In addition to this, section 23 of the act also gives a formula to determine the "Annual Value" of the property. In my considered view, this addition was not made

S MAGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

property's guideline value to 3,000 per sq.ft., supporting the assessee's claim that the 2016 market value was lower. The AO ignored this fact, making the penalty baseless. 4. Relevant Court Rulings ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 The Kolkata High Court ruled in a similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based

S. POTHYRAJ,TIUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE01(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

property's guideline value to 3,000 per sq.ft., supporting the assessee's claim that the 2016 market value was lower. The AO ignored this fact, making the penalty baseless. 4. Relevant Court Rulings ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 The Kolkata High Court ruled in a similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based

S RAMESH,TRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

property's guideline value to 3,000 per sq.ft., supporting the assessee's claim that the 2016 market value was lower. The AO ignored this fact, making the penalty baseless. 4. Relevant Court Rulings ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 The Kolkata High Court ruled in a similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based

S ASHOK,TIRUNELVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

property's guideline value to 3,000 per sq.ft., supporting the assessee's claim that the 2016 market value was lower. The AO ignored this fact, making the penalty baseless. 4. Relevant Court Rulings ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 The Kolkata High Court ruled in a similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based

S MURUGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

property's guideline value to 3,000 per sq.ft., supporting the assessee's claim that the 2016 market value was lower. The AO ignored this fact, making the penalty baseless. 4. Relevant Court Rulings ITA Nos.3169 to 3173/CHNY/2024 The Kolkata High Court ruled in a similar case (CIT vs. Madan Theatres Ltd.) that penalty cannot be imposed based