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

house property . It was submitted that all the loans given for commercial purposes be excluded while allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act . It was prayed by learned DR that onus is on the assessee to prove that it is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act and prayers were made

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or Section 153A(1)(b) states that the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the reassess the total income

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or expenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

property at MRC Nagar should be added to cost of the asset, but cannot be claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has discussed the issue at length in light of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act along with Accounting Standard -16 issued by the ICAI and observed that

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

houses and the total consideration received during F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.3,46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

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

property. Assessee was always obliged to pay the amount either to the beneficiary or the original drawer. Assessee held the money only as a trustee in fiduciary capacity. Once the money is held as trustee, the question of limitation will not arise at all. In any case, RBI itself has issued a Notification on 24.05.2014 mandating the banks to transfer

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

1,92,36,734/-. 8. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has justified computation of long term capital gains after availing benefit of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act, along with certain judicial precedence and argued that ‘a’ house referred

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

housing project. In this regard, clauses 6(c) and 9 of MOA elaborate the nature of developmental works to be carried out by the developer simultaneously on execution of JDA. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: “6(c) The Second Party after satisfying themselves that the title of the Owners is clear and marketable, shall arrange to clear

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land