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

House property Rs. (35,27,428/-)\nas returned\nAdd: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/-\ndisallowed (as in para 13.4)\nAdd: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/-\n(as in para 12.5)\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/-\n(as in para 12.6)\nAdd: Further estimated addition in respect

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

92,192/- for under-reporting of income by misreporting of its income. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority, but could not succeed. The ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellant order dated 21.2.2023 sustained penalty levied by the AO u/s. 270A of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee

ZANNATHU FIRDOUSE,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTNL. TAXN WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Zannathul Firdouse, The Income Tax Officer, Flat C-104, Raheja Regency, V. International Taxation Ward - 147, Santhome High Road, 2(2), R A Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. [Pan: Aadpz-6639-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishna, Fca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

section 54F of the Act. Since, the construction of property was not completed even as on 04.03.2016, the Assessing Officer denied deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and computed long term capital gains at Rs. 64,92,456/- and added back to the total income. :-4-: ITA. No: 422/Chny/2023 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

house property by investing the said Rs.6.45 crores in Capital Gain Account :-3-: ITA. No:710/Chny/2025 Scheme (CGAS) with SBI. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the order u/s.143(3) of the Act was finalized determining his total income as Rs.6,92,04,950/-. 5. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee had purchased

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

92. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

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

92. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

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

92. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

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

92. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

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

92. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.AR as well as the ld.DR and pursued the records. We find that the plea for bifurcation of the assessment of the house property income attributable to the Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam in view of the admitted fact of the same being a property held in joint capacity

MR. THIRUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

Section 54F of the Act does not prescribe any minimum plinth area or a construction cost. The statute only requires that the assessee construct a residential house within three years. Thus, the ld. CIT(A)’s observation that the building occupies “less than 0.5% of 92 cents is immaterial. :-4-: ITA. No.:3351 /Chny/2024 5.1 The Department’s reliance

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

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Property only with the consent\nof the LESSEE.\n5.11 From the discussions made above, it can be conclusively proved\nthat, the assessee was engaged in sale of residential flats and profit so\nearned from such transactions have been claimed as deduction\nu/s.80IAB. The cost of construction including the land cost,\ninfrastructure cost and construction cost on the whole has been

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

house property being residential accommodation the tenant had not deducted TDS on rent paid by them. If any communication had bought to my notice earlier i would have taken necessary steps to submit at that relevant point of time. 2. Non-disclosure of loan given in the Income Tax Return (ITR) In ITR-3 of AY 2018-19 the disclosure

THIRUVENGADAMUDALIAR RAMALINGAM,ARNI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1830/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thiruvengadamudaliar Ramalingam The Principal Commissioner Of No.4, Big Sayakara Street, Vs. Income Tax (Central), Kosapalayam, Chennai-1. Arni – 632 301. [Pan: Aacpr 1690P]

92,38,918/- treating the excess stock as unexplained investment u/s. 69B of the Act. The Ld AR submitted that the assessee has filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the addition and the matter is pending before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore the Ld. PCIT does not have jurisdiction

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

House property\nas returned\n(Rs. 35,27,428/-)\nAdd:\nInterest on borrowed capital\ndisallowed (as in para 13.4)\nRs. 8,14,484/-\nAdd: Addition to deemed rental income\n(as in para 12.5)\nRs. 1,68,000/-\nAdd: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a)\n(as in para 12.6)\nRs. 25,200/-\nAdd: Further estimated addition in respect

MEERA HUSSAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.501/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Meera Hussain Pr. Cit बनाम/ 19, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-8. Vs. Mannady,Chennai-600 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahpm-9324-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar(Ca) – Ld.Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan (Cit) – Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assail The Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8 (Pr. Cit) Vide Impugned Order Dated 25.03.2021 In The Matter An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 14-11-2017. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-8, Passed U/S.263, With Reference No.: Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020-21/ 1031753147(1), Dated 25.03.2021, Is Against The Facts Of The Case Weight Of Evidence On Record & Bad In Law For The Following Reasons:-

section 263. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Hon'ble PCIT, Chennai-8 is against the provisions of the Act as the original Order cannot be treated as erroneousand prejudicial to the interest of revenue and is completely unsustainable in law.” 2. The Registry has noted delay of 380 days in the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders