BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

63 results for “house property”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi478Karnataka470Mumbai337Bangalore183Surat133Jaipur94Ahmedabad64Chennai63Kolkata48Cuttack27Chandigarh27Hyderabad26Pune22Indore17Cochin17Calcutta16Raipur15Visakhapatnam13Agra11Nagpur11Amritsar11Rajkot10Lucknow9Guwahati8Telangana7SC6Rajasthan4Varanasi4Jodhpur3Andhra Pradesh2Patna1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A113Section 143(3)98Addition to Income51Section 6842Section 14731Disallowance30Section 13220Section 1118Section 54F17

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHRI GANGESAN SASEENDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2753/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr.N.Rajagopalan, CA
Section 54F

house property. The AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee since the assessee has entered into contract for construction agreement prior to one year before the sale of the long term capital asset. As per the details the assessee had entered in to agreement for construction on 06/07/2010 and deed of sale for undivided share of land was dated

R.UPENDRAN (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1188/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

Section 5415
Reassessment13
Survey u/s 133A12
ITAT Chennai
03 Jul 2017
AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(1)

Section 54 takes into account all independent residential unit and complete house. Independent residential units, particularly in these days when multi-storeyed flats are becoming the order of the day. In this case, if the assessee invested the capital gains in the construction of further floor in the existing building and even if it was commenced before the sale

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 54F

234 ITR 753(All) and CIT v JR Subramaya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571/(1986) 28 Taxman 578(Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of section 54 of the Act. The said section is pari materia in section 54F. The only distinction being that section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 626/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 122Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 47

234 of 2018 dated 08.07.2020 with regard to question of chargeability of capital gains on the account of transfer of properties between the two, if any, the consequential order passed by them should be reckoned as bad in law.] 11. The CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai failed to appreciate that order of search assessment under Section 153C

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

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

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1676/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 54

234/- on the joint property and ₹.5,62,65,625/- on the individual property as income from other sources. On perusal of para 6.5.7 of the impugned order, we note that the assessee has clarified that the deduction for the properties were claimed under two separate provisions of the Act, i.e., under section 54 of the Act for the land

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. HARIPRIAY JAGDISH, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1532/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.Murali Mohan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: Mr.P.S.Prabhakar,C.A
Section 54Section 54F

section 54 of the I.T Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold one property on 09.09.2011 for a consideration of `11,88,000/- which was purchased by her on 20.01.2006, and the assessee sold another property on 31.12.2011 for a consideration of `48,00,000/- which was gifted to her by her husband

K. VENKATESAN (HUF),SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1) SALEM, SALEM

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2945/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 194I

234, Brindavan Road, 3rd Cross, Circle-I(1) Fairlands, Salem-636 016. Salem. PAN : AAHHK-3502-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Vijaideepan, JCIT सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of hearing 13.02.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 07.05.2025 : आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

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

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1684/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1687/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1688/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1685/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1686/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1682/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

ITA 1683/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 24

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

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid decisions have subsequently been reversed or stayed in any manner by any higher judicial forum. ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 6. We find that similar is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 24/CHNY/2012[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid decisions have subsequently been reversed or stayed in any manner by any higher judicial forum. ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 6. We find that similar is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2012[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid decisions have subsequently been reversed or stayed in any manner by any higher judicial forum. ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 6. We find that similar is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 22/CHNY/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed. Nothing has been shown to us that the aforesaid decisions have subsequently been reversed or stayed in any manner by any higher judicial forum. ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 6. We find that similar is the view of Hon’ble Delhi High Court