DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

House property Rs. (35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

House property Rs. (35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

37,98,900 The assessee as well as A.O has not disputed the above facts. 4. The A.O relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs. ACIT 389 ITR 38 (P&H) considered the maintenance charges as received by the assessee from the premise of rent agreement as “income

SENTHIL KUMAR (HUF),TUTICORIN CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, , TUTICORIN CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 653/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Senthil Kumar (Huf) Ito, 34B/4, Briyant Nagar, V. Ward-4, 4Th Street Middle, Tuticorin. Bryant Nagar, Tuticorin – 628 008 . [Pan: Abahs-1591-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

section 54F of the Act, in order to get deduction towards capital gain, the assessee needs to invest sale consideration received from transfer of property for purchase/construction of new house property. In case the assessee has invested part of sale consideration, then proportionate deduction is allowed. In the present case, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant facts has rightly recomputed

GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

37,347/- against house property income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee submitted that the interest has been paid to various financial institutions for the loans obtained on property is allowable u/s.24 of the Act. With respect to supporting the assessee filed the evidence of bank payments made each

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 269UA, the assessee would be deemed owner of the property. Accordingly, the lease income earned therefrom was to be assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ which would be eligible for statutory deduction of 30%. Finally, the aforesaid income was assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ and Ld. AO also made interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) / 37

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 269UA, the assessee would be deemed owner of the property. Accordingly, the lease income earned therefrom was to be assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ which would be eligible for statutory deduction of 30%. Finally, the aforesaid income was assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ and Ld. AO also made interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) / 37

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.2267 To 2270/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 88/A, Dr.Allagappa Road, Corporate Ward-6(4), Vs. Purasawalkam, Chennai-600 084. Chennai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpt-9083-C (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) : (01थ- / Respondent) अपीलाथ-कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand- Advocate 01थ-कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson – Ld. Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12/10/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 03/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 269UA, the assessee would be deemed owner of the property. Accordingly, the lease income earned therefrom was to be assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ which would be eligible for statutory deduction of 30%. Finally, the aforesaid income was assessed as ‘Income from House Property’ and Ld. AO also made interest disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) / 37

GANESAN KALEESWARAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 23 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 10 of the Act and thereby he disallowed the claim of assessee. The CIT(A) finally held that the AO has rightly recomputed the salary by making addition of Rs.5,86,872/- as under reported by claiming expenses of personal nature. Accordingly he confirmed the addition. 7. After hearing ld. Senior DR and going through the facts

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

properties. 2.6)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, one of the conditions for allowing deduction u/s 54F is that the assessee should not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer for claiming the exemption under the said condition. In the assessee’s case, the assessee was owning more than one residential house and therefore

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

properties. 2.6)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, one of the conditions for allowing deduction u/s 54F is that the assessee should not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer for claiming the exemption under the said condition. In the assessee’s case, the assessee was owning more than one residential house and therefore

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

properties. 2.6)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, one of the conditions for allowing deduction u/s 54F is that the assessee should not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer for claiming the exemption under the said condition. In the assessee’s case, the assessee was owning more than one residential house and therefore