BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

168 results for “disallowance”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai305Delhi269Chennai168Bangalore118Ahmedabad94Hyderabad86Jaipur72Pune70Kolkata51Surat39Indore34Visakhapatnam29Chandigarh24Cochin18Lucknow14Karnataka14Nagpur13Raipur12Agra11Jodhpur9Rajkot9Cuttack8Patna7Dehradun4Ranchi4Jabalpur4Allahabad2Varanasi2Amritsar2Telangana2Calcutta1SC1

Key Topics

Section 54F264Section 5494Section 143(3)57Exemption57Deduction55Disallowance55Capital Gains47Addition to Income45Section 271(1)(c)41Long Term Capital Gains

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

ITA 124/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Showing 1–20 of 168 · Page 1 of 9

...
31
Section 26328
Section 153A24
Section 3
Section 54E
Section 54F

sections 54EC and 54F of the Act, the reopening of assessment to disallow exemptions under section 54EC & 54F of the Act tantamount

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1207/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 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) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54Section 54F

section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming various disallowances

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

ITA 431/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case

B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

ITA 95/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case

ITO NON CORP WARD 14 (4), CHENNAI vs. SMT. B VATHSALA, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1112/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

disallowance under section 54F of the Act of ₹. 6,39,34,520/-. On appeal, by following the decision in the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. D.PARTHASARATHY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri N.Sabapathy, Advocate
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54Section 54F

Section 54F. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 54 on the ground that what was sold

SHRI D. RAVIKUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

In the result, the orders of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Income Tax

ITA 3314/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 14.07.2022
Section 54F

Section 54F be allowed by deleting the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer in the interest of Justice. 4.Further, the Assessee pleads that the Penalty proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal. The Assessee craves permission to adduce further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that

PURANCHAND & FAMILY (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2974/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2974/Mds/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Puranchand & Family (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Lloyds Lane, V. Non-Corporate Ward 12(3), Chennai – 600 014. Chennai – 34. Pan : Aaehp3644P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sahadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Chennai Dated 15.09.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri K. Balasubramanian, The Ld. Representative For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Huf, Sold 122.840 Carat Of Diamonds On 02.01.2012 For A Total Consideration Of ₹57,12,060/-. The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 54F

disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), on the ground

M.B.VENKATESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO COMPANY WARD II(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 668/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.668/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 54Section 54(1)Section 54F

Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of capital gain arising out of the sale of vacant plot. According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer disallowed

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.M.VIJAYARANGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1397/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Placing reliance on the judgment

ITO, CHENNAI vs. P.MADAN MOHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1493/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Placing reliance on the judgment

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.P.RAJMOHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1495/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Placing reliance on the judgment

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1494/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Placing reliance on the judgment

ITO, CHENNAI vs. P.A.SARALA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

Section 54F

disallowed the claim under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 4. Placing reliance on the judgment

V.R.USHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2288/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mrs. V.R. Usha, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.7, New No.15, Dutch Village V. Business Ward - Xv (1), 2A, Maharaja Surya Road, Chennai - 600 034. Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Ablpu 7306 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 54F

Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). He further submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed

POINT MANI JANAKI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPUR

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

ITA 2306/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2306/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Point Mani Janaki, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Point Mani, Ward 2(1), Door No. 6/32 A3, Point Illam, North Tiruppur. Street, Vijayapuram Post, Nallur, Tiruppur 641 606. [Pan:Agdpj8781C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Adjournment Petition. Hence, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 54Section 54F

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by denying the deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short

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

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

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 54F

disallowed Rs.2,63,82,379/- as not allowable application of expenditure on account of construction of house & CO No.79/Chny/2024 (AY 2020-21) Shri Anil Reddy Yeduguri Sandhinti :: 4 :: property as per section 54F

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

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

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

disallowance of 54F to the extent of Rs.5,79,300/- on the ground that assessee purchased two residential properties and claimed exemption. But appellant was not in possession of any other residential property at the time of purchase of two properties. 7.7.6 It is noticed that amendment to section

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

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

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

disallowance of 54F to the extent of Rs.5,79,300/- on the ground that assessee purchased two residential properties and claimed exemption. But appellant was not in possession of any other residential property at the time of purchase of two properties. 7.7.6 It is noticed that amendment to section

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

ITA 926/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh-
Section 133ASection 148Section 263

disallow the same. On appeal, the Hon’ble Madras High Court found that the larger issue which was the Hon’ble Madras High Court found that the larger issue which was the Hon’ble Madras High Court found that the larger issue which was the allowability of exemption u/s 54 of the Act as opposed to Section 54F