SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

property within the stipulated period, benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act cannot be denied. In this regard, relied upon the following judgments: 1. CIT v Ravindar Kumar Arora (2012) 342 ITR 38 Delhi 2. CIT v Sardarmal Kothari and another (2008) 302 ITR 286 3. CIT v Sambandan Udayakumar (Karnataka High Court) 4. Nipom Mehotra v ACIT

GOVINDARAJAN RAMASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 54F) where the construction is not completed within the prescribed time, as is for the non-utilisation of the funds within the said period or acquisition of another residential house within the defined period (s.54F(4)), both, again, future events. Therefore, where the assessee has discharged his obligation, investing the sale proceeds (net consideration) of the original asset

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI vs. A.M.K.SHAHUL HAMEED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabph6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 11.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 01.06.2013 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.10,82,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2

302 ITR 286 (Mad), which was duly endorsed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. B.S. Shanthakumari [2015] 233 Taxman 347 (Karnataka). Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 7. With regard to the denial of deduction claimed on multiple properties under section

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

302 [PAN:ACKPE-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant by : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CA. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT. सुनिाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 आआआआ /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

302\n/-(Cr)\nRs.25,35,39,999/-\n(Cr) and\nRs.1,81,90,000/-\n(Dr)\nRs.37,11,00,301/-\n(Cr)\nIt's running account and\nfor your reference\nledger copies attached for\nsubsequent transactions\nConfirmation\nPaper book 1 - P.g No\n80\nLedger copy\nPaper book 5 P.g No\n412-419\n8\nRikshita\nJain\nK\nAMBPJ1821H\nRs.22

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ MOTORS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & C.O. No.80/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1179/Mds/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 623, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2572 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-Objector)

house property” or “income from business” has no relevance for allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the rental income received by the assessee by letting out the property cannot 3 I.T.A. Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/15 C.O. No.80/Mds/15 be construed as “income from business”, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ MOTORS P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 & C.O. No.80/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1179/Mds/2015) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Motors Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 623, Anna Salai, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaack 2572 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent & Cross-Objector)

house property” or “income from business” has no relevance for allowing the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. According to the Ld. D.R., the rental income received by the assessee by letting out the property cannot 3 I.T.A. Nos.1179 & 1180/Mds/15 C.O. No.80/Mds/15 be construed as “income from business”, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction

C.ANITHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1038/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. C. Anitha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No.25, New No.26, Non Corporate Ward 1(1) Vaidyaraman Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aalpa 8804D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

302 ITR 286, wherein the Hon’ble High Court, Madras has held that section 54F of’ the Income Tax Act has to be liberally construed to benefit the assessees’’. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: The appellant is an individual. The return of income for the Asst. Year 2012-2013 was filed on 26.07.2012 disclosing total

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

302 day. Such affidavit shall not be considered as true and correct reason for delay. 5. Relying on latest decisions of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai: In view of the above, it is submitted that the reasons given by the appellant in their affidavit after receipt of Defect Memo is not a valid reason to admit this appeal. In this connection

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

302 day. Such affidavit shall not be considered as true and correct reason for delay. 5. Relying on latest decisions of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai: In view of the above, it is submitted that the reasons given by the appellant in their affidavit after receipt of Defect Memo is not a valid reason to admit this appeal. In this connection

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

302 day. Such affidavit shall not be considered as true and correct reason for delay. 5. Relying on latest decisions of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai: In view of the above, it is submitted that the reasons given by the appellant in their affidavit after receipt of Defect Memo is not a valid reason to admit this appeal. In this connection

M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

302 day. Such affidavit shall not be considered as true and correct reason for delay. 5. Relying on latest decisions of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai: In view of the above, it is submitted that the reasons given by the appellant in their affidavit after receipt of Defect Memo is not a valid reason to admit this appeal. In this connection

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

housed in the same premises as the music school has a total of\n8,939 books on a variety of subjects and is an adjunct to the music school\nactivity. Shri S Muralidhar thus argued that the music school being run by\nthe assessee was in pursuance of its object of 'education' and it did not\nconstitute a 'general public

D. RAJARAM, REP BY S. DHANDAPANI(POWER HOLDER),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.233/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri D. Rajaram, The Income Tax Officer, Represented By S. Dhandapani Vs. International Taxation Ward, (Power Holder), Coimbatore. Old No.21G, New No.35, Rangasamy Colony, 2Nd Street, Selvapuram, Coimbatore. [Pan: Akmpr-4391-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

house property at Rs. :- 3 -: 67,200/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee now before us raised the issue that once there is no addition on the issue of reopening and reasons recorded, no addition can be made on other issues unless and until addition is made on the reasons recorded. For this, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1), , CHENNAI vs. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. GAUTHAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident

DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(2),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI UTTAM KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident

ITO COMPANY WARD 5(1),, CHENNAI vs. VIKAS KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

The appeals stand dismissed

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

section 139(1) is fatal to the claim for exemption." 2.4 The ld CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has not spent substantial amount in construction before the time limits specified in the statue and that of construction of the new asset. 2. As evident