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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

house property income and huge long term capital gain and even after receiving notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed her return of income admitting only ₹. 2,15,130/- as income as against income admitted during the course of assessment proceedings of ₹.1,92,62,150/-. In view of the above and since 4 I.T.A. No.779/Chny/19

J.RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D. S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.555/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2001-02 Mr. J.Ravichandran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.3/50, Lakshmi Talkies Road, Business Ward Xiv (1) Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 006 [Pan: Aafpr2178D]

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made the claim of interest on borrowings for renovation of house :: 2 :: property

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. D.PARTHASARATHY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

property. Subsequently, the house was demolished on the request of the buyer and sale deed was executed during the year under consideration. Therefore, the assessee made a claim under Section 54 of the Act. Even if for any reasons, the claim under Section 54 could not be allowed, the assessee is definitely eligible for deduction under Section

EDWARDSAM,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), TRICHY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 728/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Edward Sam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/189, Priyanka Nagar, Ward -2(2), Kattur Post, Trichy 620 019. Trichy. [Pan:Aaape2757N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Retired Employee Of Bhel & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 06.07.2011 Admitting An Income Of ₹.5,92,178/- After Deducting House Property Loss Of ₹.53,981/-. The Case Has Been Selected For Scrutiny Since

house property loss of ₹.53,981/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny since 2 I.T.A. No. 728/Chny/23 the assessee had a cash deposit of ₹.27,31,700/- in BHEL Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trichy. After considering the submissions and details against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. INDO INTERNATIONAL LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.58/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Indo International Ltd., No.18, 1St Floor, Sunkurama Street, Income Tax, V. Company Circle – Ii(3), Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaaci 2408 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property”, the assessee deliberately offered the same under different heads with the intention to evade tax liability. Therefore, the Assessing Officer found that it is not an inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars and accordingly the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271

V.S.RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At that time it was brought to the notice of the assessee that Shri P.S. Prabhakar has not filed appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the property was found to be used in the business of the assessee under the wealth

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹.8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued since there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

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

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

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

section shall apply where- (a) the assessee (i) owns 70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHANMUGHAM RAMAMOORTHY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 402/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 & C.O. No. 59/Chny/2017[In I.T.A. No. 402/Chny/2017] The Income Tax Officer, Shri Shanmugham Ramamoorthy, Non Corporate Ward 23(2), Vs. No. 2, Sarathy Street, Pallavaram, 130-B, Mudichur Road, West Chennai 600 043. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Aaapr2796J] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit Assessee By : Ms. Sushma Harini, A., Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 18.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

houses at the time of sale of his property and accordingly held that the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Act also. 3. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer observed that the act of assessee in claiming a deduction that he is not entitled for also tantamount to suppression / concealment of income. Further such

MEENA THIAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

271. The Hon’ble High Court considered this issue on identical facts and held in favour of assessee in para 3.3 to 3.6 as under:- 3.3 It is admitted by the assessee that he sold a house property at Bangalore. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee owned a house property and sold the same. He also admits that

R.SRINIVASAN -HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house property at Bangalore alongwith two others and sale deed was registered on 29.03.2010 much before the stipulated date. Therefore, there is no dispute on violation of stipulated conditions of Sec. 54F of the Act. Further, on the aspect of applicability of provisions Sec. 50C of the Act, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the guideline is to be considered

JAY FARM HOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

House, The Assistant Commissioner of No.18, Balamuthukrishnan Street, v. Income-tax, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Central Circle II(2), Chennai – 600 034. PAN: AAB FJ 6822 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं /Appellant by : Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered Accountant ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23.08.2016 घोषणा