ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -15(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI RAMACHANDRA RAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 58/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), 21B, Deccan Parvathy, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206, Wanaparthy Kannappa Nagar Extension, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aehpr6467D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act

section 3 I.T.A. No.124/Chny/18 & C.O. No.58/Chny/18 50, income received as a result of depreciable asset (intangible) shall be deemed to be Short Term Capital Gain irrespective of period of holding. Thus, full consideration of Rs.22323186/- is to be treated as Short Terms Capital Gain and to be taxed accordingly. The deduction u/s 54EC and 54F

D.JAYARAMAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3338/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri D. Jayaraman, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14/45, Wason Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Circle 1, Chennai. [Pan: Acepj0343D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.07.2019 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) 2, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relating To The Long Term Capital Gain By Holding That The Assessee Owned More Than One Residential House Property As On The Date Of Transfer Of Capital Asset.

section 54F of the Act with regard to the transfer of the first capital asset located at Lakshmi Nagar, Valasaravakkam. 4.2 With regard to the residential property at No. 14/A-5, Wason Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, the Assessing Officer observed that although this property was used as an office, the assessee did not claim any depreciation

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. D.JAYARAMAN, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1398/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee/an ‘individual’ is engaged in construction business. He had filed his return on28.9.2009 disclosing total income of ` 76,48,902/-. The same was ‘summarily’ processed. The Assessing Officer took up ‘scrutiny’. He received AIR 3. information for examining the assessee’s deduction claim u/s 54F

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Depreciation Rs. 1,18,895/- - 3. Interest expenses Rs. 8,93,642/- Rs. 12,99,120/- Net professional income (-)Rs. 3,59,150/- Add: Disallowance of interest unrelated to Rs. 8,93,642/- profession Income assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A Rs. 5,35,492/- Tuition income as undisclosed income u/s 68 Rs. 10,65,970/- Gift received as undisclosed

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Depreciation Rs. 1,18,895/- - 3. Interest expenses Rs. 8,93,642/- Rs. 12,99,120/- Net professional income (-)Rs. 3,59,150/- Add: Disallowance of interest unrelated to Rs. 8,93,642/- profession Income assessed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A Rs. 5,35,492/- Tuition income as undisclosed income u/s 68 Rs. 10,65,970/- Gift received as undisclosed

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

depreciation is admissible under section 32" had been omitted; and] (c) to the depletion of mineral oil in the mining area in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which commercial production is begun and for such succeeding year or years as may be specified in the agreement; and such allowances shall be computed and made

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year ( hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.—For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

54F of the Act merely on the ground of nonproduction of individual bills/vouchers towards construction which were unavailable on account of passage of time was wrong, erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. 13. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/being interest paid as unaccounted in the computation of taxable total income without

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

54F of the Act amounting to Rs.45,15,560, but has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act. As against the capital gain admitted in the return of income amounting to Rs.39,17,794, the AO adopted the sale consideration as per section SOC of the Act amounting to Rs.2,63,04,214 and from there, recomputed

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

54F of the Act. 8. The CIT failed to appreciate that in the absence of fulfillment of the twin condition being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the revisionary proceeding initiated is wrong and unsustainable in law and ought to have appreciated that the consequential :-3-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 revision order

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

depreciation and the consideration of only a part of it by the assessing :-8-: ITA. No: 173/Chny/2023 officer who did not go into the issue with respect to the whole amount, was an error, that could be corrected under section 263. The above case is pari materia with the current case.  In the above ruling, a reference has also been

SHRI. N KRISHNAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 13(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 54. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in denying the claim for deduction on the value invested on another residential property by erroneously invoking sec 54F, while the Appellant is entitled to deduction u/s 54. Hence owning of more than one residential property cannot be a reason for denying the deduction against capital gains claimed