SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

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.

1, 1988. They provide that “transfer” includes (i) any transaction which allows possession to be taken/retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and (ii) any transaction entered into in any manner which has the effect of transferring or enabling the enjoyment of any immovable property

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 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) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

1) of the Act was also issued on 09.06.2014. The assessee has claimed exemption under section 54 and 54F of the Act and thereafter arrived at long term capital gains. For the purpose of LTCG, the Assessing Officer adopted guideline value under section 50C of the Act as deemed sale consideration as against sale deed value and accordingly, the difference

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [PAN: AAGCA5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश

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

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 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 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

50C of the Act, this value of ₹.6,51,76,500/- has to be taken as sale consideration for the computation of capital gain. Since, the assessee has not filed any return of income admitting any capital gain on the sale of the above property, the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was re- opened by way of issuing

SMT. HALIMA,,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW -2 (2),, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.203/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Gulam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan:Bacpg6476P] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.204/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Fakhrudeen, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aaxpf5259M] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.205/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Smt. Halima, W/O Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aacph1491G] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.206/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aadpi4938E] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house and thus qualifies for exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves to adduce further grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four assessees are members of the same family. Smt. Halima obtained the property measuring 4,400 sq. ft from her father Shri

SHRI FAKHRUDEEN,,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (2),, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.203/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Gulam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan:Bacpg6476P] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.204/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Fakhrudeen, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aaxpf5259M] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.205/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Smt. Halima, W/O Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aacph1491G] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.206/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aadpi4938E] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house and thus qualifies for exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves to adduce further grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four assessees are members of the same family. Smt. Halima obtained the property measuring 4,400 sq. ft from her father Shri

SHRI A. IMITIAZ,,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (2),, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.203/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Gulam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan:Bacpg6476P] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.204/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Fakhrudeen, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aaxpf5259M] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.205/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Smt. Halima, W/O Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aacph1491G] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.206/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aadpi4938E] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house and thus qualifies for exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves to adduce further grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four assessees are members of the same family. Smt. Halima obtained the property measuring 4,400 sq. ft from her father Shri

SHRI I. GULAM,,MADURAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2(2), , MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.203/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Gulam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020. No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan:Bacpg6476P] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.204/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri I. Fakhrudeen, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aaxpf5259M] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.205/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Smt. Halima, W/O Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aacph1491G] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.206/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Shri A. Imitiaz, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 231, K.K. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai 625 020 No. 2, V.P. Rathinasamy Nadar Road, [Pan: Aadpi4938E] Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house and thus qualifies for exemption under section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant craves to adduce further grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that all the four assessees are members of the same family. Smt. Halima obtained the property measuring 4,400 sq. ft from her father Shri

A VIJAYAKUMARI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, NCW-1, , THANJAVUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

1) of the Act deals with transfer of a long term capital asset being building or lands appurtenant, whereas, section 54F of the Act deals with transfer of any long 6 I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/18 term capital asset not being a residential house, but both are coming under computation of income from capital gains. From the observations of the Assessing Officer

S MURUGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment

S RAMESH,TRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment

S ASHOK,TIRUNELVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot be treated as concealment