DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

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

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

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

House property. Therefore, claim of appellant that just because AO happened to not make disallowance during previous year, same disallowance can't be made for current year does not sound reasonable. Therefore, I am of considered view that AO has correctly made disallowance of interest Rs.14,94,644/- which has no nexus with earning ITA Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

house property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” The issue involved in the present appeal is similar to that of the issue dealt with in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal having modified or reversed

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

374/- |\n| 2015-16 | Rs.34,93,08,960/- | Rs.61,74,24,524/- |\n| 2016-17 | Rs.45,46,48,400/- | Rs.69,79,90,661/- |\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

374/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

374/-\nRs.61,74,24,524/-\n2016-17\nRs.45,46,48,400/-\nRs.69,79,90,661/-\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nfor the impugned

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

374/- |\n| 2015-16 | Rs.34,93,08,960/- | Rs.61,74,24,524/- |\n| 2016-17 | Rs.45,46,48,400/- | Rs.69,79,90,661/- |\nAggrieved by the above order(s), the assessee preferred appeal(s) before\nthe Ld. CIT(A).\n3.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had inter alia challenged the\nvalidity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

374 ITR 118 (Del)]. Nothing, therefore, turns on Special Bench’s decision in LG’s case (supra), which, in any event, is no longer good law in this respect. 24. As clarified by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in Sony Ericsson’s case (supra), it’s earlier judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki decision (supra), in view of subsequent