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 54F was made by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein deduction

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 54F was made by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein deduction

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

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

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

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.

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by denying the deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 4

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

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]

4. On further appeal to ld.CIT(A), who affirmed the order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld. Counsel for the asssessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) having accepted the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act in the hands of the appellant’s husband

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 was allowability

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 was allowability

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

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

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 54F of the Act. 9. The NFAC erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

disallowing the claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2017-18, the assessment was reopened to examine the claim of deduction / exemption claimed from capital gains. The assessee had sold inherited property located in Besant Nagar on 23.03.2016 along with five co-owners for a total consideration

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

SALMA AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON-CORPORATE WARD-14(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 778/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Salma Ahmed, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 33A, Thomas Nagar, Little Mount, Non Corporate Ward -14(3), Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Chennai. [Pan:Aovps4111D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Prasanna, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 02.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Belatedly For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 31.03.2018 Under Section 139(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.71,09,420/- After Claiming Deduction Under Section 54F

disallowed the same and brought to tax, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and argued that exemption under section 54F of the Act must not be denied as long as the deposit is made on or before the due date of filing return of income either under section 139(1) or section 139(4

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].

4 I.T.A. No.783/Chny/20 Philip. It is verified from the assessee's written submission dated 21.08.2019 that the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on 16.01.2018 against the order u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2017 wherein the assessing officer has made an addition of Rs.77,14,616/- towards disallowance of claim under section 54F

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"

disallowing the cost of improvement of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the claimed by the assessee while computing while computing ‘Short Term Capital Gains’. 4. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened for the first time 4. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened for the first time 4. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened for the first time through issuance of a notice through

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:

4. On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below. 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54F

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)

54F.  The size or modest nature of the construction cannot be a ground for denial.  The disallowance of Rs.2,45,95,000/- is unsustainable. 20.1 Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act. Addition of Rs.56