GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

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

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

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

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

Section 69A of the Act was\nwrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both\non facts and in law.\n:-3-:\nITA. No:3123/Chny/2024\n10. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the findings from para 5 of\nthe impugned order were wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified\nand not sustainable both on facts and in law\n11. The NFAC

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

house property and tax accordingly.”\nTherefore, the contentions raised in our grounds of appeal for the A.Y.2015-16 is\nto be considered and the grounds of appeal of the revenue may please be\ndismissed as there is no relief given by the Id.CIT(A).\nb) The Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the cash deposit of Rs.28,30,000/-:\nThe Id.DR

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

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

house\nproperty and consequently claiming exemption under section 54,\nthe seller filed the computation of income paying Rs. 1,83,576\nas tax, which was quite evident from the conflicting statements\ngiven by the seller and the conflicting income-tax returns filed by\nhim that his action of admitting sale consideration and paying tax\nwas nothing but an obvious effort

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

GUNASEKARAN MANNAR,VILLUPURAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

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

house property, business or profession, and\ncapital gains. A search action under section 132 of the Act was conducted\nat the residential and business premises of the assessee on\n02/03.11.2022. During the course of search, the Respondent examined\nthe billing software \"S.S. Retail\" used by the assessee and found the\ndifference of ₹.1,00,11,231/- between the Trans_Sales

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