ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

45,450/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 8 -: and 360/Mds/2015 directed the Assessing Officer to verify the computation of income of the assessee and if the contention of ld. Authorised Representative for assessee found to be correct, the Assessing Officer may re-compute the taxable income and delete the excess addition made in the computation of income

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.DHANASEKARAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

45,450/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) I.T.A.Nos.620/Mds/13 :- 8 -: and 360/Mds/2015 directed the Assessing Officer to verify the computation of income of the assessee and if the contention of ld. Authorised Representative for assessee found to be correct, the Assessing Officer may re-compute the taxable income and delete the excess addition made in the computation of income

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 14 of the 1961 Act , so that Revenue gets its legitimate share of correct taxes due from tax- payer for every assessment year. Since, we have held that rental income from the said factory land , building constructed thereon and 2 generators installed thereon shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and hence

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

Section 14 of the 1961 Act , so that Revenue gets its legitimate share of correct taxes due from tax- payer for every assessment year. Since, we have held that rental income from the said factory land , building constructed thereon and 2 generators installed thereon shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘Income from House Property’ and hence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project..... The issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that widening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part of a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project..... The issue has been examined by the Board. It has been decided that widening of an existing Road by constructing additional lanes as a part of a highway project by an undertaking would be regarded as a new infrastructure facility for the purpose of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

45 of Income tax determined and given to sharing rights. Act. him, what he receives is his share in the partnership and The Memorandum of However, in case of not any consideration for Family Arrangement Ramachandran Family transfer of his interest in the impounded during the Group, the memorandum partnership to the Survey establishes that of Family Arrangement continuing partners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

4. The appellant assessee sold a residential house property at No.137, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for Nagar, New Delhi on 15.1.2010 in favour of one Smt.Vanadana Manchanda, for a total consideration of Rs.12,50,00,000/ consideration of Rs.12

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

45 of Income tax Act. However, in case of Ramachandran Family Group, the memorandum of Family Arrangement clearly establishes that, the withdrawals from firm is in lieu for reduction of profit sharing rights. Also, the funds withdrawn are from the current account of partners and not the capital account. 6.6 Therefore, the AO has contended that the assessee has withdrawn

N RAMASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

property for claiming exemption under Section 54F of the Act. We have gone through the provisions of Section 54F of the Act which reads as follows:- 4 I.T.A. No.925/Chny/19 54F. CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where

B.SUNDARARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

house property and other sources. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Department regarding sale of immovable property at T. Nagar by one Shri B. Sundararajan and Smt. B. Vatsala (mother of Shri Sundararajan) of ₹.45 crores. The total consideration of ₹.45 crores was divided between

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 18(1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. B SUNDARAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 431/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri B. Sundararajan, Income Tax, No. 34, Umapathy Street, Non Corporate Circle 18(1), West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aasps3969C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 95/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 Shri B. Sundararajan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 34, Umapathy Street, Vs. Income Tax, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Non Corporate Circle 18(1), Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. V.S. Sreelekha, Cit Assessee By Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 31.10.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2

house property and other sources. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. As per the information available with the Department regarding sale of immovable property at T. Nagar by one Shri B. Sundararajan and Smt. B. Vatsala (mother of Shri Sundararajan) of ₹.45 crores. The total consideration of ₹.45 crores was divided between

ITO NON CORP WARD 14 (4), CHENNAI vs. SMT. B VATHSALA, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1112/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Smt. B. Vathsala, Non-Corporate Ward-14(4), Vs. No.34/30, Umapathy Street, Chennai. West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Actpb 9534H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao Vana, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai Dated 15.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Assessee’S Claim Of Deduction Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

4 I.T.A. No.1112/Chny/18 Assessing Officer observed by combined reading of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2) of section 54F of the Act that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction under section 54F of the Act only for one property. Since the assessee purchased two properties on 19.03.2008 one for an amount

MRS. RAJYASHREE SHYAM,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 18 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, Of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [Pan Agcps 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property was acquired within the time limits specified under Section 54. 2.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee is not required under the provisions of section 54 to establish the nexus between the amount of sale consideration and the cost of new asset. :- 3 -: 2.5 The Appellant submits that Section

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

Bench: This Tribunal.

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income