B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

houses comes to ₹.18,49,40,160/- and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for both the properties. The Assessing Officer observed by combined reading of sub-section (1

ITO NON CORP WARD 14 (4), CHENNAI vs. SMT. B VATHSALA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

houses comes to ₹.18,49,40,160/- and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for both the properties. The 4 I.T.A. No.1112/Chny/18 Assessing Officer observed by combined reading of sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

160) (Guj) 2.CIT Vs. Ice Suppliers Corporation (64 ITR 195(P&H) 3.CIT Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) (140 ITR 705)(Mad) 4.CITVs. Mahalakshmi Textile MillsLtd.(66 ITR 710)(SC) 7. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

160) (Guj) 2.CIT Vs. Ice Suppliers Corporation (64 ITR 195(P&H) 3.CIT Vs. Indian Express (Madurai) (140 ITR 705)(Mad) 4.CITVs. Mahalakshmi Textile MillsLtd.(66 ITR 710)(SC) 7. The learned AR for the assessee, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

1) (c) of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) has also confirmed the same. Referring to the penalty order, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 54/54F in respect of a capital gain arising on the sale of the land at Injambakkam. It is not in dispute that

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

160 TAXMAN 48(SC), the Apex Court held that the investments 7 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 made a banking concern are part of the business of banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to the business of banking falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. 3.2 Even though the abovementioned decision

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

160 TAXMAN 48(SC), the Apex Court held that the investments 7 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 made a banking concern are part of the business of banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to the business of banking falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. 3.2 Even though the abovementioned decision

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

160 TAXMAN 48(SC), the Apex Court held that the investments 7 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 made a banking concern are part of the business of banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to the business of banking falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. 3.2 Even though the abovementioned decision

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

160 TAXMAN 48(SC), the Apex Court held that the investments 7 I.T.A. Nos.2325 & 2326/Mds/16 I.T.A. Nos.2433 & 2649/Mds/16 made a banking concern are part of the business of banking. Therefore, the income arising from such investments is attributable to the business of banking falling under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. 3.2 Even though the abovementioned decision

RAMANUJAM ELANCHELIYAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 20 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri. Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 211/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property was Rs. 2,56,40,160/- and consequently erred in directing the Assessing Officer to consider cost of investment for computing exemption u/s. 54F of the Act at Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as against Rs. 2,56,40,160/- The existing ground number 5 may be renumbered as ground number 7. “ 3. The brief fact is that