TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

property, invoking Section 23(1) r.w.s 23(5) of the Act. The AO also proposed to levy penalty under Section 270A for misreporting income.", "held": "The Tribunal found that the AO's addition of deemed house

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

5 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\n7\nValuation Report submitted (No valuation report\nsubmitted. Only comment submitted by\nValuation officer)\n09.08.2019\n8\nAssessment Order. No opportunity of being\nheard\n14.08.2019\nInterpretation and application of Section 54F\n4.\nThe CIT (Appeals) failed to take note of the fact that as per Section\n54F of the Act the requirement is that the 'assesse shall utilize

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

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

house property. 18. However, the said submission of the assessee came to be rejected by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) who had held as follows: “Grounds No. 4 to 8: These grounds concern the application of section 23(5

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

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman Koil Street, Madipakkam Rs. 48,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 14,400 Rs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

5) of the Act, which treats the eligible business as the only-source of the assessee. Reference may be made to the Circular No.281, dated 22.09. 1980 (131 ITR St 23) which explained the object of introduction of section 80-1 by the Finance(No. 2) Act, 1980 where similar provisions are enshrined. The relevant part is reproduced for ready

S.SAROJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORAE CIRCLE-19(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Saroja, Deputy Commissioner Of Door No. 47, Pandian Street, V. Income Tax, Sankaran Avenue, Velachery, Non Corporate Circle – 19(1), Chennai – 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Baeps-1299-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

5,40,000/- instead of Rs. 8,40,000/-. In respect of interest income, the assessee on bonafide belief declared interest income under the head income from business. However, when the AO noticed above mistakes, he has fairly agreed and paid taxes on annual value of the house property and also accepted assessment of interest income under the head other

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman\nKoil Street, Madipakkam\nRs. 48,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 14,400\nRs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur\nRs. 1,20,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 36,000\nRs. 1,20,000\nRs. 36,000\nRs.84,000\nRs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Appellant had duly produced lease agreements, electivity bills and corporation tax receipts before the Assessing Officer to establish that they were only in possession of a commercial property in the nature of a tannery and not a residential property thereby rendering the trigger of the First Proviso to 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

5. The Assessing Officer held that only that part of the construction expenditure incurred after the sale of the original asset would be eligible for expenditure incurred after the sale of the original asset would be eligible for expenditure incurred after the sale of the original asset would be eligible for exemption under Section 54 of the said

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

5. The ld.AR for the assessee Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, FCA, assailing the action of the ld.PCIT, submitted that the order u/s.154 of the Act neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld.AR drew our attention to the issue of treatment of rental income of the assessee under the head ‘income from house property’ has already been subject matter

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

house property and has computed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act at Rs. 48,89,965/-. In our considered view, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to adopt full value of consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act, for the purpose of computing deduction u/s. 54F of the Act, is totally misconstrued and misplaced, because

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

house property”. The assessee also paid expenses on maintenance charges and claimed the maintenance charges as “income from other sources” i.e., the surplus arising out of the same. The Ld. counsel for the assessee explained that the property has got parking lots for parking vehicles belonging to the tenants and their clients in the basement, ground and first floor

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

section 54 of the Act, the technical violation of not utilizing the exempted capital gains through the prescribed capital gains account to the extent quantified in the assessment order would not negate the claim for tax exemption as per the computation forming part of the return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went

R.MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NONCORORATE WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

section 54 of the Act should not stand in the way for approving the claim for the said deduction in view of the admitted position of the creation of the new asset, thereby vitiating the related findings in para 4.1.6 of the impugned order. 10. The ACIT failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

section 54, disregarding the property reinvestment that qualifies for capital gains exemptions. The ld.CIT(A) completely omitted to consider the grounds raised before him in respect of additions which gave birth to confirmation of arbitrary additions. For these and other Grounds that shall be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the Learned