BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

43 results for “house property”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai227Delhi202Jaipur64Ahmedabad57Hyderabad51Chennai43Bangalore37Indore36Kolkata35Amritsar35Pune29Chandigarh22Rajkot16Raipur13Visakhapatnam13Agra11Lucknow11Nagpur11Dehradun6Surat4Cochin3Patna3Guwahati3Varanasi2Allahabad2Ranchi1Karnataka1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income38Section 54F30Section 4021Section 14818Section 13217Disallowance16Deduction15Section 143(3)12House Property11

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

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

ITA 1632/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

Section 5410
Section 14A10
Section 45(2)10

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

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

ITA 1727/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

ITA 1675/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1688/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

house property as business income raised by the Revenue. CO No.56 /Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2015-16 8.0 Through its CO No.56 the assessee has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148. It has been contended that as the proceedings are invalid the consequent assessment order would fail. It is the case of the assessee that notice

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 1796/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, CIT
Section 250

house property as business income raised by the Revenue. CO No.56 /Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2015-16 8.0 Through its CO No.56 the assessee has challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148. It has been contended that as the proceedings are invalid the consequent assessment order would fail. It is the case of the assessee that notice

DCIT, NCC - 19 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI SUDHAKAR,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 710/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.710/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & C.O. No. 3/Chny/2022 [In I.T.A. No. 710/Chny/2020] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Sudhakar, Income Tax, No. 11, East Vellalar Street, Non Corporate Circle 19(1), Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacps4146D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri A.S. Sumanth, Jcit Assessee By : Shri A.K. Jain, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai, Dated 23.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1) The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Assessee'S Appeal Without Proper Appreciation Of Facts.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Sumanth, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and thus, the issue be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and ascertain the nature of property. 4 I.T.A. No. 710/Chny/20 & C.O. No. 3/Chny/22 7. The ld. AR of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has filed certain additional evidence before

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABHAYA KASHMIRA, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

ITA 2542/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 14ASection 24ASection 54

property and the rental receipts from the remaining rooms as an income from business receipts. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer after examining all the aspects held that the assessee had no intention to invest her long term capital gains, which arose on 06.10.2006 in purchase or acquisition of residential house, even before investing the sale consideration

ABHAYA KASHMIRA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as

ITA 225/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2542/Chny/2017 & Co No: 5/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Smt. Abhaya Kashmira, Tax, Vs. No. 6 & 7, Ramgiriextn., Non- Corporate Circle -1(1), Taramani, Velachery Link Road, Formerly Known As Business Circle -1, Chennai – 600 042. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aixpk 0809J]

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Mohamed Mustafa, JCIT
Section 14ASection 24ASection 54

property and the rental receipts from the remaining rooms as an income from business receipts. While making the assessment, the Assessing Officer after examining all the aspects held that the assessee had no intention to invest her long term capital gains, which arose on 06.10.2006 in purchase or acquisition of residential house, even before investing the sale consideration

SUDHA RAMANI,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3352/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3352/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sudha Ramani, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat A3, 862, Siddharth Manor, Non Corporate Ward 10(3), Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Ahepr9857M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Raised 3 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 for admission of additional evidence substantiating the source for investment in the immovable property. The ld. CIT(A) treated the said additional evidences as new evidence and called for remand report from the Assessing Officer. After 3 I.T.A. No.2380/Chny/24 considering the remand report and submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) remanded

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1828/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

House Promoters Tax vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle II(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACCG 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1785/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

House Promoters Tax vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle II(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACCG 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1796/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A
Section 194CSection 40Section 4U

House Promoters Tax vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle II(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACCG 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. Y. Sridhar, C.A. सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 08.05.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), CHENNAI vs. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1765/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1765/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Mr. Arvind Srinivasan Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 61, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 004. Pan: Adcpa0371R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr. B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: 02.12.2020
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 40A(3)

46A of the IT Rules 1962. 3 3.4 Having regard to the fact that as per seized documents and as admitted by the assessee in his sworn statement, Rs.10,00.00,000/- was paid to MIs Kokilam Foundation and out of this payment of ` 10 crores. a sum of Rs.5 crores was made in cash in violation of the provisions

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. MOHAMED HASSAN, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2244/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

house I.T.A. No. 2244/Chny/2018 4 property. Considering the contention of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) gave partial relief on the disallowance. Aggrieved by the relief given by the ld. CIT(A) without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO in terms of calling for a remand report in respect of documentary evidence and details furnished

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), TRICHY vs. SHAIK ISMAIL, PUDUKOTTAI

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

ITA 3170/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3170/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Shaik Ismail, Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Williams 383, East Street, Arasarkulam, Road, Cantonment, Trichy 620 001. Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai – 614 801. [Pan:Aaapi2395C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.11.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 26.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting An Income Of ₹.1,24,41,730/- Which Includes Capital Gain Of ₹.98,07,591/-. The Assessee Along With Five Others Had Sold A Property Situated At Arcot

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

property, otherwise valid, would only for the purposes of clubbing of income be treated as per section 64. It nowhere says that transfer itself was' not valid. 14. Harmonious reading between section 54F and section 64 of Income Tax Act 1961 will show that, gift and transfers from husband to wife is allowed, it is even expected

SUPRIYA P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 2179/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sailendra Mamidi, Pr. CIT
Section 132

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which

SUPRIYA P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sailendra Mamidi, Pr. CIT
Section 132

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which

SUPRIYA P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sailendra Mamidi, Pr. CIT
Section 132

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which

ITO, CHENNAI vs. P.SUPRIYA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sailendra Mamidi, Pr. CIT
Section 132

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which

SUPRIYA P,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE OFFICER, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 2182/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sailendra Mamidi, Pr. CIT
Section 132

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was conducted in the case of Shri Muralidharan on 15.03.2011. During the course of search operation, certain materials were found, which were impounded. According to the Ld. D.R., in the cash flow statement filed before the Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed a sum of ₹37,38,740/- which