CIT v. V. Natarajan

287 ITR 271High Court2006#1931 most cited

What is CIT v. V. Natarajan authority for?

The deduction under Section 54 for investment in a new residential property is available even if the property is purchased in the name of the assessee's wife or jointly with the spouse.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. V. Natarajan · V. Natarajan Madras High Court · Section 54 exemption · Section 54F deduction · capital gains residential property · purchase in wife's name · joint ownership spouse · new house property exemption · assessee and wife property

Also reported as

154 Taxmann 399

Sections most often in play

Section 54Section 54FSection 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 54f(1)section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)under-reporting of incomesection 80csection 54fforeign tax creditroyalty incomesection 54bwithholding taxsection 54

Judgments citing CIT v. V. Natarajan

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

ITA 1366/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54ESection 80C

…urce of income. Learned CIT(A) relied on decision in Shri Jain Narayan vs. ITO (complete citation given in the relevant para of the impugned order). 8 Daulat Singh Haldea, Jaipur. Learned CIT(A) also relied upon another decision in Natarajan’s case (2006) 287 ITR 271, so as to deny the claim as regards remaining 50%. 15. It may be mentioned here that in his remand report, the Assessing Officer reported to Learned CIT(A) that the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 54F of the Act, only to the extent of 50% as the assessee had failed to establish disability of his son and that his son was having no source…

HANCHIPURA CHANNAIAH NANDAKISHORE,MAHALKSHMIPURAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD INTL, TAXATION 1(2) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.258/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Hanchipura Channaiah Nandakishore 87, 2Nd Stage & Phase Mahalakshmipuram 2Nd Stage, 14Th Main, West Of Chord Ito Road Vs. Ward International Taxation 1(2) Mahalakshmipuram Bangalore Bangalore 560 086 Pan No :Blrpn0428A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.R. Respondent By : Dr. Divya K.J., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2025

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 54Section 54(2)Section 80T

…India and the registry was completed in the name of Mr. Ajay Suri for the sake of convenience. 12. On this issue, we are guided by the various orders of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: (a) CIT v. Natarajan [2006] 154 Taxman 399/287 ITR 271 (Mad.) -The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. (b) DIT, International Taxation v. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82/203 Taxman 208/[2012] 349 ITR 80 (Kar.) – The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by t…

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1592/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C(2)Section 54Section 80C

…Kamal Wahal [2013] 351 ITR 4 (Del.), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that exemption under section 54F could not be denied merely because the house was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife. Similar ratio has been adopted in CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad), and several other decisions of coordinate Benches. 5.4 Thus, while the principle of strict construction of exemption provisions is well established, the interpretation of section 54 in the context of purchase in the name of spouse has been directly addressed by various High Courts in favour of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) has not reco…

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 103/NAG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 250Section 50CSection 54(2)Section 54F

…" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT Vs. Natrajan, (2007) 287 ITR 271 (Mad), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gurnam Singh, (2010) 327 ITR 278 took the same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act which is again pari materia of Sectio…

B.N. KRISHNAKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD,, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.43/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.M.Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.C.Yamuna, CIT
Section 54

…lethora of judicial pronouncements including decision delivered by this tribunal in the case of Mrs.Baskari Page - 2 - of 4 Madhavan, ITA No.572 / Chny / 2020, D.Devadoss ITA No.246 / Mds / 2015 as well as Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of V.Natarajan, 287 ITR 271. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered to be remitted back to the Ld.AO for consideration of proportionate allowance of deduction u/s 54 to his son and wife. 4.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities. 5.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. The only…

SMT. TEJAL KAUSHAL SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3303/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Reepal Tralshawala
Section 143(2)Section 23Section 250Section 54

…ee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F(1) of the Act when the house of the assessee is purchased jointly with his wife. In the case of CIT v. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271/ 154 Taxman 399 (Mad.), though this case was decided in relation to Section 54 of the Act, the said Section is pari materia of Section 54F(1) of the Act. Likewise, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Gurnam Singh [2010] 327 ITR 278/[2008] 170 Taxman 160 took the same view while discussing the provisions of Section 54 of the Act…

PHOOL SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1986/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarphool Singh Vs. Ito Plot No.2394 (Basement), Ward – 3(2) Sector – 46, Gurgaon Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002 Pan : Eurps 4895 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

…s been recorded by the ITAT which does not require any interference in this appeal.”  Similar is position in Laxmi Naryan vs. CIT 402 ITR 117, High Court of Rajasthan,  CIT vs. Kamal Wahal, (2013) 351 ITR 4, High Court of Delhi,  CIT vs. Natarajan, (2006) 287 ITR 271, High Court of Madras,  CIT vs. Ravinder Kumar Arora, (2011) 52 sot 201, ITAT Delhi Bench and  Sh. Rajkumar Mandani vs. DCIT, ITA No. 835/Hyd/2018 dated 20.11.2018, ITAT Delhi Bench. 9.4 So, it is clear that assessee has purchased agricultural land and therefore, is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 10. Learned Authorized Representat…

VIDJAYANE DURAIRAJ VIDJAYANE VELRADJOU,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1457/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundar, CA
Section 148Section 54F

…d, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Assailing the action of the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 287 ITR 271 and instead has followed the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Vidjayane Durairaj Vidjayane Velradjou :: 4 :: Court in the case of Kamal Kant Kamboj v. ITO, Ward-3, Haryana, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 541 (Punjab & Haryana) and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products reported in 88 ITR 192 whe…

MR COLATHUR N. RAM ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 34(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of what we have observed hereinabove

ITA 1464/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54

…ACIT, reported in MANU/ID/0012/2024. The relevant paras 12 and 13 are reproduced as under: “12. On this issue, we are guided by the various orders of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: a) CIT vs. Natarajan, MANU/TN/8708/2006: [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Madras HC)- The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new residential property was purchased in the name of the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide MANU/KA/2766/2011: [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC)-The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for investment in residential property by the assessee jointly with her husb…

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Kumar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 54Section 54F

…spouse name, it has been ruled on eligibility of income tax deduction u/s 54 of the Act in following manners: “12. On this issue, we are guided by the various orders of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunal which are as under: a) CIT vs. Natarajan, [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Madras HC) - The deduction under section 54 was allowed where the new Simran Bagga residential property was purchased in the name o f the wife of the assessee. b) DIT vs. Mrs. Jennifer Bhide [2011] 15 taxmann.com 82 (Kar HC) - The Tribunal has allowed exemption u/s 54 for 12 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia investment in residential property by the assesse…

ANJAPPAN RANGASMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCITCENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 317/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 316/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 307/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 306/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIORCLE-1(3_, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 305/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

ANJAPPAN RANGASAMY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3), CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 304/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…ghter which was mere after-thought. The assessee relied on the decisions of Chennai Tribunal in Smt. A.Tamil Ponni vs ITO (ITA No.3112/Chny/2019; 25-02-2020) which, in turn, relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of V. Natarajan (287 ITR 271). Reference was made to various other decisions. However, Ld. CIT(A) referred to the decision of Tribunal in D.Devdass (ITA No.2047/Mds/2015; 07-04-2016) and confirmed the denial of deduction. Consequently, the denial of deduction u/s 24(b) as well as u/s 80C was also confirmed. 3.3 The credit of foreign tax payment was denied by Ld. AO. The Ld.…

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3