S.SAROJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Saroja, Deputy Commissioner Of Door No. 47, Pandian Street, V. Income Tax, Sankaran Avenue, Velachery, Non Corporate Circle – 19(1), Chennai – 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Baeps-1299-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

192/- for under-reporting of income by misreporting of its income. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority, but could not succeed. The ld. CIT(A), for the reasons stated in their appellant order dated 21.2.2023 sustained penalty levied by the AO u/s. 270A of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

192 (Gujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

192 (Gujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

192 (Gujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

192 (Gujarat HC) the Hon’ble High Court held that disallowance of interest is unwarranted when the assessee has demonstrated sufficient interest-free funds available to cover advances given to third parties. 6.5.8 In the case of Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 379 ITR 347 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

properties , fresh sanction plans issued by local municipal authorities etc. to substantiate that the loans were granted/utilised for the purposes of construction of additional floors etc to the borrowers. The matter is remitted back to AO and the assessee is directed to produce all details before the AO. The AO shall in remand proceedings after considering the submissions

KALPANA SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-8(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2153/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Kalpana Sundar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 4/3, Sri Janakas, 2Nd Cross Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 8(1), Street, East Kamakodi Nagar, Chennai. Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087. [Pan:Cnvps4092J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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 28.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of The Claim Of Tax Exemption Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

house property before extended due date of filing of return of income under section 139(4) of the Act, she is eligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act. Thus, two decisions of different High Courts in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra) and in the case of Fathima Bai v. ITO (supra) are in favour

ITO, COIMBATORE vs. COIMBATORE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1965/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

192, allowed the claim of the assessee. 7 I.T.A. No.1965/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.2222/Mds/14 10. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the cost of acquisition of capital asset was allowed under Section 11 of the Act as application of income. Therefore, in the books, the cost

COIMBATORE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1965/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

192, allowed the claim of the assessee. 7 I.T.A. No.1965/Mds/14 I.T.A. No.2222/Mds/14 10. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. It is not in dispute that the cost of acquisition of capital asset was allowed under Section 11 of the Act as application of income. Therefore, in the books, the cost

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

House property income of ₹. 8,400/- and Long term capital gain of ₹.1,86,40,192/-. The assessment was completed on 31.12.2016 determining the income at ₹.1,91,62,741/- and a demand of ₹. 68,03,570/- was raised. Accordingly demand notice under section

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE T.S.ARUNACHALAM, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house within the period stipulated in section 54F (1), if the assessee wants the benefit of section 54 F, then he should deposit the said capital gain in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words, if he wants the claim of exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said

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]

192 which says that if a statutory provision is capable of more than one view, then the view which favours the tax payer should be preferred. The Tribunal also observed that Section 54F being a beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses should be liberally interpreted. 7. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the view taken

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

AGASTYAR TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) I, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1180 & 1181/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S Agastyar Trust, The Deputy Commissioner Of Tnk House, 48, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax (Exemptions)-I, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaats 0968 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. The Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that he is not pressing this issue. The Ld.counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect on the appeal folder. Hence, this ground of the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 5. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In respect

AGASTYAR TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) I, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1180 & 1181/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/S Agastyar Trust, The Deputy Commissioner Of Tnk House, 48, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax (Exemptions)-I, Chennai - 600 002. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaats 0968 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. The Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that he is not pressing this issue. The Ld.counsel has also made an endorsement to that effect on the appeal folder. Hence, this ground of the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 5. I have also gone through the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. In respect

VIDJAYANE DURAIRAJ VIDJAYANE VELRADJOU,PUDUCHERRY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

192 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case of doubt or dispute it is well settled that construction of provision of law which favors assessee be adopted, rather that of Revenue. Thus, if two reasonable views are possible on an issue, then one in favour of the assessee must be adopted. Therefore, according to the Ld.AR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

192 ITR 287 (upheld by the Supreme Court in [2001] 115 Taxman 99), Supreme Court decision in CIT vs Lovely Exports P Ltd [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) and the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 661.\n7.5.20 I now see whether the premium transaction could fall under any other specific section