RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

section 54F. 7. The Learned CIT(A) in the event of holding that the construction was not completed within the stipulated time, ought to have allowed the claim of the appellant U/s 54 based on amount utilised by assessee out of sale consideration towards construction of new house property. 8. The Learned CIT(A) failed to see that when

R.SRINIVASAN -HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house property at Bangalore alongwith two others and sale deed was registered on 29.03.2010 much before the stipulated date. Therefore, there is no dispute on violation of stipulated conditions of Sec. 54F of the Act. Further, on the aspect of applicability of provisions Sec. 50C of the Act, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the guideline is to be considered

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

housing to be allowed in phases of 20% in each phase,\nlinked to occupation in the processing area;\"\n15. Pursuant to the above approval, M/s. MWCDL is noted to have\nentered into a co-developer agreement dated 10.03.2008 with the\nassessee (M/s. MRDL) for development of residential infrastructure in an\nextent of area of 55 acres of land which

SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property is only from buildings or land appurtenant thereto and not from land alone as offered by the assessee. Hence, the 30% notational deduction claimed on the rent received from 3 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 land was not in order and same has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property is only from buildings or land appurtenant thereto and not from land alone as offered by the assessee. Hence, the 30% notational deduction claimed on the rent received from 3 I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/21 & 2417/Chny/19 land was not in order and same has escaped assessment. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated

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.

section 133(6) of the Act, wherein, it is made to understand that the Tirupur Municipal Corporation levied house property

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2052/Mds/2011 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08

house R&D centre expenditure at Hyderabad under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act.” • As per the Notes to Accounts - Schedule 15, under “Deferred Revenue Expenditure” (page 31 of PB-II), it is mentioned that, “Expenditure incurred on research and development of new products has been treated as deferred :- 12 -: revenue expenditure and the same has been written

INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56 of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

133, G.S.T.Road, Chrompet, Chennai -600044. On 22-01-2021, the said company and my son have purchased vacant land measuring 243 cents and 6 cents, respectively, situated at Uthangudi Village, Madurai East Taluk, Madurai from K.Murugesan, Mr. P R Palanichamy and his two sons, P Senthil Kumar and P Suresh Kumar, residing at No.379, Sarveshwarar Temple Street, Anna Nagar, Madural

L.S.VISHNU PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

house property’ was disallowed. The assessee was saddled with another addition of Rs.0.38 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, being amenities & others charges received from tenants. The last addition of Rs.25.84 Lacs represents unexplained investment in gold jewellery, silver and diamond. Though the assessee had filed wealth tax return and submitted that there were no fresh purchases during

L.S.VISHNU PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

house property’ was disallowed. The assessee was saddled with another addition of Rs.0.38 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, being amenities & others charges received from tenants. The last addition of Rs.25.84 Lacs represents unexplained investment in gold jewellery, silver and diamond. Though the assessee had filed wealth tax return and submitted that there were no fresh purchases during

L.S.VISHNU PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

house property’ was disallowed. The assessee was saddled with another addition of Rs.0.38 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, being amenities & others charges received from tenants. The last addition of Rs.25.84 Lacs represents unexplained investment in gold jewellery, silver and diamond. Though the assessee had filed wealth tax return and submitted that there were no fresh purchases during

L.S.VISHNU PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

house property’ was disallowed. The assessee was saddled with another addition of Rs.0.38 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, being amenities & others charges received from tenants. The last addition of Rs.25.84 Lacs represents unexplained investment in gold jewellery, silver and diamond. Though the assessee had filed wealth tax return and submitted that there were no fresh purchases during

L.S.VISHNU PRASAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

house property’ was disallowed. The assessee was saddled with another addition of Rs.0.38 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, being amenities & others charges received from tenants. The last addition of Rs.25.84 Lacs represents unexplained investment in gold jewellery, silver and diamond. Though the assessee had filed wealth tax return and submitted that there were no fresh purchases during