INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI ARUN GUPTA,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

section 54 of the Act. In this case, the assessee has :-10-: ITA. No:844 /Chny/2020 satisfied all conditions, except there is a technical breach in one of the conditions of depositing unutilized capital gain amount in capital gains deposit account scheme on or before due date for filing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, however, such

ANNIRUTHA RAGHUVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allow

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

139(1) of the Act i.e. on or before i.e. on or before belatedly deposited it only in 11th th& 14thAugust, 31.07.2014; and had 2014. Therefore, the AO erefore, the AO denied exemption claimed u/s. 54 of the Act claimed u/s. 54 of the Act ITA No ITA Nos.2239/Chny/2024 [AY 2014-15] AnniruthaRaghuveer :: 4 :: which impugned action cannot be countenanced

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

4 :: On 07th March 2018, Mr. Abhayakumar Deepak, Mr. Shankarlal 5. Abhaya Kumar and Mr. Abhaya MG Mayur had resigned from M/s.Amuda LLP transferring the combined capital balance of Rs.1,50,000/- to M/s.AIMS LLP (assessee). Thus, the capital balance of the assessee as on 07th March 2018 was Rs.1,21,50,000/-. Subsequently, M/s.Abusha Aryav Ventures Private Limited ("AAVPL

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Capital Gain Scheme should have been made prior to due date under section 139(1) is untenable (259 CTR 388 P&H) - Copy enclosed. (b) Investment under section 54 B can be made within the period prescribed by Section 139(4

RAM KRISHAN KULWANT RAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

139 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to initiate proceeding under Section 153C of the Act. Having dropped the proceeding under Section 153C of the Act, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer cannot initiate any proceeding for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the decision of Amritsar

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after

AMMAPURAM RAJARAMAN RAJESH,TRICHY vs. DCIT, NCC-17(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20

capital gains' claimed that such losses or any part thereof should be carry forward for set off under sections 72 to 74A, he is under obligation to furnish the return within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. Section 139(5) on the other hand deals with revised return and states that if any person having furnished

DR. PRATHIMA VENKATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2612/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dr. Prathima Venkatachalam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O Revathi S. Raghunathan, Vs. International Taxation 2(1), Chartered Accountant, Flat No. 32, Chennai. G Block, Re Classic Apartments, 68, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. [ Pan: Aqkpp 4278K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

4. The brief facts of the case insofar the cross appeals for the block period under consideration in IT(SS)A No.153 & 162/Mds/2003 are as follows: The assessee is a Managing Director of M/s.Pentafour Products Limited, receiving income under the head “Salary”, dividend income as well as the sitting fees during the block period. The Income Tax Department had conducted

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4. The case was selected for ‘Limited scrutiny’ and accordingly the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the :-3-: ITA. No:1755/Chny/2025 assessee submitted that the sale proceeds of the long term capital asset has been invested in a residential property within the specified time prescribed u/s.54 of the Act. 5. However, the AO denied

SREEDHARAN VIJAYAKUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIIONAL TAXATION 2(2) , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gain tax had not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor were the unutilized amounts deposited in the notified Bank Accounts in terms of section 54F (4) before filing the return of income, Assessing Officer had rightly computed the section 54F proportionately to the amount invested. 4.7 In view of the foregoing discussions the investment

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

139(1) of the Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer has passed order by treating Rs.6.45 Crores as income for the A.Y. 2017-18 under the head capital gains on account of the CGAS :-6-: ITA. No:710/Chny/2025 made, even before the expiry of 3 years from the date of transfer of the capital

ITO, CHENNAI vs. RETTANAI GOVINDAN MUNUSWAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1085/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

capital gain accounts scheme before 139(1) of the ITA No.1085/Mds/2016. :- 8 -: Act, therefore the ld. Assessing Officer has restricted exemption u/sec. 54F and denied the balance. On perusal of the Sec. 54F(1) of the act the exemption is allowed to the assessee as under:- ‘’54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4

M.K.VITHYA,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2739/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015

139(1) of the IT Act ?" 4. Re. Point No. 1 Sec. 54F deals with capital gains on transfer of certain capital assets not to be charged in case of investment on house. It reads as under : "54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-s. (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual

KALPANA SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

4 I.T.A. No.2153/M/17 investment of capital gains towards acquisition of residential flat within the time stipulated under section 139(4

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

4 years from the end of the assessment year and hence proviso to Section 147 of the 1961 Act is not applicable . The assessee filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble Madras High Court challenging the issue of notice u/s 148 of the 1961 Act wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 14.12.2007 directed the assessee to file return

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

4 years from the end of the assessment year and hence proviso to Section 147 of the 1961 Act is not applicable . The assessee filed Writ Petition before Hon’ble Madras High Court challenging the issue of notice u/s 148 of the 1961 Act wherein Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 14.12.2007 directed the assessee to file return