DEEP DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

46 of the Transfer of Property Act as well as section 2(47)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, it would be clear that the assessee’s father has lawfully extinguished his lifetime enjoyment right over the property. 5.1 The scheduled property was originally acquired by the grandfather of the assessees from the TNHB through allotment

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

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54 / 54F of the Act, brought the long term capital gains to tax. The assessee has complied with the conditions and provisions of Capital Gains Scheme by investing the long term capital gain in purchase of land and construction of residential house, aggregating to `1,08,19,213/- and the builder has handed over the possession of the residential

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

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 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

P.R.EASWAR KUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 16 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 54 reads as follows, "…….. and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house." From the above, it is evidently clear that the investment in the construction of new house

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

46,446/-, it was explained that the assessee has demolished the House and constructed new residential property with total cost of Rs. 2,77,39,045/- and filed details. The Ld. AO find that the assessee has not complied the conditions and provisions of section

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

46,446/-. After demolishing the existing superstructure, the . After demolishing the existing superstructure, the . After demolishing the existing superstructure, the appellant appellant appellant assessee assessee assessee constructed constructed constructed a a a residential residential residential house house house at at at a a a cost cost cost of of of Rs.18,73,85,491/-. Thus, the appellant assessee claimed entire

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property tax paid in the year 2013, no water and sewage Bill and no electricity bill is there. The Ld.DR stated that without prejudice to the above, that the cost of the land should be allowed only to the extent of land appurtenant to the house, which is constructed in the land measuring 504 Sq.ft. and hence prayed for setting

TNCD LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tncd Llp, Ito, 126, Kg House, Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(1), Arts College Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. [Pan:Aagft-8799-R] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R

46,066/- Standard Deduction @30% of ALV = Rs. 93,13,819/- Deemed Income from House Property = Rs.2,17,32,247/-. 6. The assessee had responded to the said notice by placing on record the details of cost of unsold units as on 31.03.2018, Year on year direct cost incurred :-3-: ITA. Nos:2602 & 2603/Chny/2025 to build 984 units

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

46,30,000/- received from the assessee by cash and cheques. The assessee has purchased residential plot on 24.11.2010 and undertook construction of the residential property. The ld. Assessing Officer on verifying the municipal tax receipt found it at higher rate and also mismatch of address on comparison with the approval plan. The ld. Assessing Officer for clarification on construction

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

house property or not. The requirement to be fulfilled for transaction amount to purchase is payment/investment of consideration for identified property. The CIT Appeals and AO have incorrectly applied test of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) of the Act to 'purchase` and the same cannot be applied to Section 54F. 6. The CIT (Appeals) and AO failed to take note

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house within three years of sale of property and to obtain the benefit of construction of new residential property, the assessee should have deposited the Long term capital gains before due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. Since the assessee has not complied the prerequisites of capital gains account

PROTECTRON ELECTROMECH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.403/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Protectron Electromech The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 9, Athipattan Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 5(2), Street, Mount Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chennai 600 002. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcp1103B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 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) 3, Chennai Dated 28.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds In The Appeal Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under The Head “Income From Other Source”.

section 24(a) of the Act towards repairs has been claimed in excess by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer worked the difference between the income from house property overstated and the income from other sources understated of ₹.46

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46,930/- is also not justified. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `44,39,908/- on the basis of loose sheets said to be found in KS/LS/S-9. According to the Ld. representative, the transaction of the assessee with Shri

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46,930/- is also not justified. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `44,39,908/- on the basis of loose sheets said to be found in KS/LS/S-9. According to the Ld. representative, the transaction of the assessee with Shri

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46,930/- is also not justified. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `44,39,908/- on the basis of loose sheets said to be found in KS/LS/S-9. According to the Ld. representative, the transaction of the assessee with Shri

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46,930/- is also not justified. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `44,39,908/- on the basis of loose sheets said to be found in KS/LS/S-9. According to the Ld. representative, the transaction of the assessee with Shri

K.S.RAVIKUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

46,930/- is also not justified. 8. Now coming to assessment year 2010-11, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that on estimate basis, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `44,39,908/- on the basis of loose sheets said to be found in KS/LS/S-9. According to the Ld. representative, the transaction of the assessee with Shri