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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

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)

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

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 on 20.11.2013 and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act, for an amount of Rs.2,91,39,659/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has acquired land i.e., ACC Shed situated at Plot

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 on 20.11.2013 and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act, for an amount of Rs.2,91,39,659/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has acquired land i.e., ACC Shed situated at Plot

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2012-13 on 20.11.2013 and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act, for an amount of Rs.2,91,39,659/-. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has acquired land i.e., ACC Shed situated at Plot

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

disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal

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]

disallowance made in the case of appellant's case was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) but the Hon'ble ITAT while deciding the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of Ld.CIT(A) had set aside the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 17.03.2020. The assessee further informed that deduction u/s 54F has allowed been

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 54F(4). • Accordingly, the AO has rightly disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 54F. 4. Aggrieved by the order

HITESH KUMAR PRITHVIRAJ KAWAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,NON-CORPORTEN CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing deduction under section 54F on the basis that Appellant owned more than one asset while claiming deduction under section

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

disallowance of claim under section 54F and the same is pending for disposal. The subject matter of appeal is disallowance

KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and therefore, in violation of clause (c) of Explanation 1 to section 263 of the Act.The ld. Counsel also referred case law citations which are as under: Sl.No Particulars Page No. 1 10-15 Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi vs ACIT: 2022 (8) TMI 1307 (Che ITAT) 2 Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma

NAUSHADAHMED ASEER AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON- CORPORATE CIRCLE-13(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.881/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Naushadahmed Aseer Ahmed, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 33A, Thomas Nagar, Little Mount, Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Non Corporate Circle 13(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aqupa8378F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Prasanna, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

disallowing the entire deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act amounting to ₹.1,60,17,386/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

MR. THIRUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

section 54F.  The size or modest nature of the construction cannot be a ground for denial.  The disallowance of Rs.2

CHERUKURI BAPUJI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2782/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

54F as a Claim under section 54 and increased the taxable capital gains by Rs.22,90,840 instead of Rs.21,82,270/- 2. Without prejudice to the above the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

disallowance in respect of the claim u/s. 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as determined in the original scrutiny assessment. This clearly determined in the original scrutiny assessment. This clearly determined in the original scrutiny assessment. This

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The assessee challenged this assessment on legal grounds as well as on merits before first appellate authority which is stated to be pending on the date of proposed revision. 6. Upon perusal of Form 35, grounds of appeal as well as additional grounds of appeal as filed by the assessee before Ld. First appellate authority