S VIJAYALAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 10(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

house property’. If you go by the meaning assigned by various Courts, there is no differentiation between property which is used for residential purpose and property which is used for commercial purpose, but only condition for claiming exemption

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 5.1 The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the AO, deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act, is not in accordance with law, because, the assessee has purchased new house property

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 5.1 The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the AO, deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act, is not in accordance with law, because, the assessee has purchased new house property

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 5.1 The AO, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and according to the AO, deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Act, is not in accordance with law, because, the assessee has purchased new house property

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

exemptions, is chargeable to tax. Section 14 of the Act enumerates five heads of income for the purpose of charge of income tax and computation of total income. These are: Salaries, Income from house property

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

exemptions, is chargeable to tax. Section 14 of the Act enumerates five heads of income for the purpose of charge of income tax and computation of total income. These are: Salaries, Income from house property

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house 3 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 property for `1,12,00,001/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. As the due date

NARASIMHAN RANGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-14(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.423/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr.Narasimhan Rangarajan, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.8, Plot No.28, Sixth Street, Non-Corporate Ward-14(5), Balaji Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aegpr 8372 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Y. Sridhar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2022

house property. The condition precedent for claiming such exemption is that in case of purchase, the house should be purchased

MRS. RAJYASHREE SHYAM,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 18 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, Of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [Pan Agcps 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Society Ltd, Flat No.803, :- 5 -: Sapodila, Vadagaon Sheri, Pune for a consideration of "2,90,00,000/-. The capital gains were computed at "1.71 Crores after reducing cost of indexation of "1.19 Crores. Assessee bought new residential property for "1,88,00,000/- at No.A-1405, Radiance Mandarin, No.1, Pallavaram Thoraipakkam Radial Road, Chennai-97 and claimed exemption

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

exemption, cannot be denied. In this case, the assessee could not furnish any evidences with regard to completion of construction of house within three years from the date of sale of original asset and also any other evidences to prove that amount has been spent for construction of house property

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

exemption of Long Term Capital Gains u/s.54F of the Act and called for the property information. In compliance the assessee explained that he has sold Residential house

GANESAN KALEESWARAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 23 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

House Property u/s.24 of the I.T. Act, reworked by the Assessing Officer on the basis of assumptions and not the evidences provided. 3 2) Excess expenses claimed u/s.10 of the I.T. Act, Bank statements submitted was not considered. Oral and documentary evidences regarding also was not taken into account. 4. First, we will deal with the issue of expenses claimed

C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

house property and purchased four portions of a property within the stipulated period by four separate deeds. The revenue authorities denied exemption

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

exemption u/s.54F of the Act for Rs.3,10,00,000/- by depositing the said amount in capital gain deposit account with Indian Overseas Bank. As per section 54F, amount which was kept in capital gain deposit account should be utilized for purchase or construction of the house property

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

exemptions under section 54EC & 54F of the Act tantamount to review of the original assessment order, which is mere change of opinion and not permissible in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment order passed under

R.MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NONCORORATE WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

exemption u/s.54 of the Act, for purchase of residential house plot and construction of residential house thereon for a consideration of Rs.89,51,190/-. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had computed indexed cost of acquisition by adopting Fair Market Value of the property

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

exemption by the Assessing Officer by invoking the First Proviso to Section 54F of the Act which is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was in possession of only one residential property and one Tannery, other than the new asset, at the date

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

property on 10.12.2011. 3.2 The AO examined the claim of assessee in regard to claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act and held that the assessee is not entitled for the claim of exemption due to the following reasons:- (a) The AO denied the claim of exemption on the reason that the alleged purchase of residential house