K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

housing loan. 16. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is one of the co-owners of the property. They have borrowed a sum of `5 Crores for construction. The 13 I.T.A. Nos.1762 to 1765/Mds/14 Assessing Officer found that a sum of `83,50,000/- was not used for construction. According to the Ld. counsel

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

housing loan. 16. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee is one of the co-owners of the property. They have borrowed a sum of `5 Crores for construction. The 13 I.T.A. Nos.1762 to 1765/Mds/14 Assessing Officer found that a sum of `83,50,000/- was not used for construction. According to the Ld. counsel

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

69A made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 8. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has not furnished any of the documents / evidence in support of his claim before the lower authorities. Further the assessee has not proved with any evidence to show

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

69A made by the AO, which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 8. Per contra the ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee has not furnished any of the documents / evidence in support of his claim before the lower authorities. Further the assessee has not proved with any evidence to show

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI vs. SUBBIAH NADAR JEGATHEESAN, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:603/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Subbiah Nadar Jegatheesan, Tax, Vs. 3, Ml Theri Road, Keeraikaranthattu, Central Circle -2, Mahadevankulam, Madurai. Tirunelveli – 627 657. [Pan:Abxpj-7672-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025

69A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Appellant upon this issue is treated as allowed and the addition made on this accounts is unsustainable.” 15. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 16. The ld.DR, Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT, vehemently opposed the findings rendered by the ld.CIT(A) in deleting

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property)” Thus, we find that the books of accounts of M/s.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt.Ltd, return(s) of income filed for the Assessment Year(s) 2012-13 to 2016- :-25-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 17 were already in possession of the Income Tax Department much prior to the date of search in the premises

KALYANASUNDARAVALLI PREMANANDHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP. WARD 8(2) CHE, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1051/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kalyanasundaravalli Premanandhan, The Ito, 52/A1, Amaravathy Nagar, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Chennai-600 106. Chennai.

section 69A of the Act and requests that the addition be deleted in the interest of justice and fair adjudication on the following grounds: 1. The appellant (assessee) is an individual and is a salaried employee in the private sector. The appellant is living with her in- laws and has a son, after being abandoned by her husband. The appellant

THENRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleshri Thenraj, The Income Tax Officer, Chennai Sun Power, Non-Corporate Ward 8(2) No.17/3, Erikarai Street, Chennai. Nerkundram, Chennai- 600107. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) [Pan:Adlpt-9671-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Dated 15.10.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: :-2-:

Section 69A of the Act was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. :-3-: ITA. No:3123/Chny/2024 10. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the findings from para 5 of the impugned order were wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law 11. The NFAC, Delhi

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MEENAMBALPURAM MADURAI vs. PALRAJ JEYAKUMAR, MADURAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1651/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Palraj Jeyakumar, Income Tax, Circle -2, 79, Sanjeevi Street, Meenakshi Nagar, Madurai. Avaniapuram, Madurai 625 012. [Pan:Adppj7550C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised Ground No. 1 To 2.3, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Housing Private Limited. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹.7,72,241/-. According to the Assessing Officer, on an information regarding cash deposits aggregating to ₹.1,98,72,352/- in ICICI Bank and ₹.93,43,965/- in his Axis Bank account was received from the DDIT, Madurai and accordingly, notice under section

SACHIDANANDAIAH GANESH,TAMIL NADU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, HOSUR, HOSUR

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:190/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sachidanandaiah Ganesh, Income Tax Officer, 37, Vaniyar Street, Vs. Ward 1, Kelamangalam, Hosur. Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 113. [Pan: Ajipg-9330-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property, commission income and income from business of selling vegetables. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961(the Act). The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason of Large cash payments in bank account during the year. During the year under consideration the appellant has made cash deposits

GANAPATHY CHANDRASEKARAN,ERODE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 776/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ganapathy Chandrasekaran, V. Tax, 93, Erode Main Road, Circle -1, Ganapathypalayam, Erode. Erode – 638 153. [Pan: Abrpc-3073-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

house property and income from capital gains. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny for the reason that there was cash deposits during the year. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices to the assessee calling for the source for cash deposits in his bank accounts. The assessee brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that assessee

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 69A of the Act, when the same are duly recorded and explained. Further, clerical or classification errors cannot give rise to additions when the substantive nature of the transaction is explained and accepted. In view of the above, we direct for deletion of the addition of Rs.11,58,03,416/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A). This ground

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 69A of the Act, when the same are duly recorded and explained. Further, clerical or classification errors cannot give rise to additions when the substantive nature of the transaction is explained and accepted. In view of the above, we direct for deletion of the addition of Rs.11,58,03,416/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A). This ground

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property