UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely : (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent. of the annual value ; (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital : Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

house property. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 54 of the Act towards capital gains derived from transfer of capital asset. :-12-: ITA. No:196/Chny/2022 12. Having said so, let us come back to the amount of exemption claimed by the assessee and further whether the assessee has satisfied the conditions

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

section 53A: To qualify for the protection of the doctrine of part-performance it must be shown that there is a contract to transfer for consideration immovable property and the contract is evidenced by a writing signed by the person sought to be bound by it and from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with

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

property, pointed out towards the appellant acquiring rights in or in respect of the building or part thereof, which rights were clearly traceable to Section 269UA(f) of the Act. 12. As pointed out above, the aforesaid conclusion is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The submission was, as noted above, even if the appellant

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

property, pointed out towards the appellant acquiring rights in or in respect of the building or part thereof, which rights were clearly traceable to Section 269UA(f) of the Act. 12. As pointed out above, the aforesaid conclusion is not even disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The submission was, as noted above, even if the appellant

ACIT, CC- 6(2),, CHENNAI vs. S.N. DAMANI INFRA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3324/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Tax, V. No. 6, Ground Floor, Corporate Circle 6 (2), Rayala Tower, Chennai. 781-785, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaocs 0334C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R

12 years, it was to be regarded as 'deemed owner' of premises by virtue of section 27 (iiib) - Accordingly, income earned from letting out shops and stalls was taxed under head 'income from house property

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. KKA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 22 provides that rental income from property, being building or land appurtenant thereto, of which the taxpayer is the owner is charged to tax under, the head "Income from house property". It will not make any difference whether the property held by the owner as stock in trade or otherwise. Thus, in respect of property held as stock

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)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

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)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

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)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

property.\nReference under Section 142A is incorrect when specific provision\nof Section 55A available\n19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the AO wrongly\nreferred the matter to District Valuation Officer when Assesse has\nsubmitted Valuation Report by Approved Valuer. The AO ought to have\nrecorded satisfaction under Sec.55A and in the present case there is no\nrecording