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

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

house within a specified period. Thus the\nconcept of \"purchase” and \"transfer” of capital assets has been categorically\nand vividly defined and there is no scope for any confusion or controversy\ntherein. Law postulates that both the conditions deserve to be complied. It\n:- 24 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\nis to be understood that legal compliances to requirement of a valid

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

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

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

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

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

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

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

37,219/-. 7.7.5 During appeal proceedings, appellant claimed that AO has made disallowance of 54F to the extent of Rs.5,79,300/- on the ground that assessee purchased two residential properties and claimed exemption. But appellant was not in possession of any other residential property at the time of purchase of two properties. 7.7.6 It is noticed that amendment

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

37,219/-. 7.7.5 During appeal proceedings, appellant claimed that AO has made disallowance of 54F to the extent of Rs.5,79,300/- on the ground that assessee purchased two residential properties and claimed exemption. But appellant was not in possession of any other residential property at the time of purchase of two properties. 7.7.6 It is noticed that amendment

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)

Housing Finance Ltd. (IIFL-HFC) but no TDS was deducted thereon under the provisions of section 194A of the ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 27 :: Act, due to which the AO disallowed 30% of the expenditure i.e. Rs.11,49,997/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved

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)

Housing Finance Ltd. (IIFL-HFC) but no TDS was deducted thereon under the provisions of section 194A of the ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 27 :: Act, due to which the AO disallowed 30% of the expenditure i.e. Rs.11,49,997/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved

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)

Housing Finance Ltd. (IIFL-HFC) but no TDS was deducted thereon under the provisions of section 194A of the ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 27 :: Act, due to which the AO disallowed 30% of the expenditure i.e. Rs.11,49,997/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved

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)

Housing Finance Ltd. (IIFL-HFC) but no TDS was deducted thereon under the provisions of section 194A of the ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 27 :: Act, due to which the AO disallowed 30% of the expenditure i.e. Rs.11,49,997/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ACCEL LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1910, 2167, 2168 & 2169/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 & C.O. No. 4/Chny/2020 [In Ita No. 2167/Chny/2019 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Accel Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), No. 75, Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai 600 034. Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029. [Pan: Aaaca3042P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri G. Suresh, Jcit Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against Two Different Orders Both Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Filed Any Application Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee Called Absent & Treated Exparte.

house property is accepted as business income, the interest paid on borrowed loans should be allowed as deduction. Thus, the ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the Revenue in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating long term capital loss on transfer of shares to subsidiary company