ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by one day, for which, the Revenue has filed a petition for condonation

LOURDES MARY ARULANANDAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 6. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee and his wife are having a vacant land at Velachery and sold it on 15.03.2013 vide document No. 1614 for a total sale consideration of ₹.3,43,98,000/-. The assessee had his wife are having equal shares in the property. The sale

THOMAS MULAYIMKAL ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

delay is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 6. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee and his wife are having a vacant land at Velachery and sold it on 15.03.2013 vide document No. 1614 for a total sale consideration of ₹.3,43,98,000/-. The assessee had his wife are having equal shares in the property. The sale

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

delay within the meanings of order of Hon'ble Apex Court\nbeing suo moto writ petition(Civil) Nos.3/2020 dated 23.03.2020 mandating\nextension of timelines on account of contemporaneous Covid-19\npandemic. In respectful compliance to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court the\ndelay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated.\n4.0\nBefore proceeding further, it is necessary to examine

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

condone the delay of ‘126’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the Revenue appeal is hit by tax effect as per CBDT Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024 which prescribed the tax effect of Rs.60 lakhs as the threshold limit to file appeal before

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “The order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-12 Chennai dated 30/9/2019 is objected to on the following grounds of appeal Exemption under section 54/54F 1.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting exemption under

RAJAN ARPUTHARAJ VINCENT NAVEEN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL/JCIT A-3, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1198/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2019-20 Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen, Vs. The Acit/Dy. Commissioner Of No. 30, Aadijan Street, Income Tax, Mandaveli 600 028, Chennai. Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai. [Pan: Ahcpn5701A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Subramaniam, C.A. & Ms. Sailas, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) /Addl/Jcit (A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of Six Days. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Explaining Reasons For The Said Delay & Prayed For Condonation Of That Delay. On Perusal Of The Condonation Petition & Upon Hearing Both The Parties, We Find That The 2

condoned. 3. The assessee raised 14 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in not considering a new plea seeking benefit under section 54/54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4. We note that the assessee is an individual and filed his return

VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case: The appellant was working overseas for several years and has been transferring his earnings in abroad by way of Inward remittance through his NRI Account in India. Bank Deposits made through her inward remittance. The appellant sold one of the lands held

SHRI THIRUMARAN PANDIAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 15 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3107/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri T. Pandian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O P. Thirumaran, Plot No. 4, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Shalimar Garden Fifth Street, Chennai. Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115. [Pan:Afnpp7417G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.05.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Delayed By 91 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently

delay of 91 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 20.06.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring an income of ₹.9,88,060/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts relating to the case are that search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of M/s. Khazana Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. and others on 21.04.2016, as the assessee sold immovable property to key person in the said group, her residence was also covered. A notice under section 153A

DCIT, NCC - 19 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI SUDHAKAR,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.710/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. No. 3/Chny/2022 [In I.T.A. No. 710/Chny/2020] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sudhakar, Income Tax, No. 11, East Vellalar Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacps4146D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri A.S. Sumanth, Jcit Assessee By : Shri A.K. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, Dated 23.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Without Proper Appreciation Of Facts.

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession and running a hospital in the name and style of M/s. S.P. Hospital as one of the partners. The assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 admitting

D.CHAITANYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

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

condone the delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO who had denied the deduction claimed U/s.54F of the Act, on the ground that investment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MADHU PARASURAM, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of above appeals are condoned and appeals filed by the Revenue are admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has, more or less, raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No.292/Chny/2017 for the AY 2012-13, are re-produced as under: ITA Nos.292

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPINATH RAMAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of above appeals are condoned and appeals filed by the Revenue are admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has, more or less, raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No.292/Chny/2017 for the AY 2012-13, are re-produced as under: ITA Nos.292

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

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

section u/s 54F(3), for purpose of construction of a shopping complex. This stands evidence to decide that the assessee's intention was not to construct a wholly residential property but with an intention to construct a structure with commercial purpose.” :-5-: The DR invited our attention to the petition filed for condonation of delay

ITO WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM vs. RAJKUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs Mr. Rajkumar, Ward-1 17, High Road, Thirumazhisai Kanchipuram. Chennai-602 107. Pan: Aehpr 1513A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “ 1.1 The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to theLaw and facts of the case. 1.2 Though the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed

SMT. RENU AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10(5),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 dated 22/3/2019, by admitting the appeal on record and disposing the case on merits of the issues involved.” I.T.A No.271/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 3. From the above, it is clear that there is a delay in filing of the appeal on the basis of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. In our opinion, in the affidavit the assessee

V.S.RAJKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

delay of 505 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee claims deduction under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground the assessee was having more than one house. Referring to the order