SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

house should be used for acquisition of the new ed for acquisition of the new asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in asset, Section 54(1) would not have allowed adjustment and/or exemption in respect of property

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 36(1)(viii) without calling for the income earned under the respective heads’ The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A), details of income earned under each of the activity :- Other Total Revenue Purpose of Operating Operating from S.No. Income In Rs. Loan income In Operations In Rs. Rs. A Construction 189,33,11,359 1

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

house property’, in light of amendment of provisions of section 54(1) by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, we find

RAJESH MIRAJKER,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-10(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

54 for being not completed within the prescribed period. Claim regarding Architect fee also cannot be considered for want of proper evidence. 16. Thus, the appellant's claim is restricted to the land and house purchased for Rs.4,50,00,000/- and stamp duty paid of Rs.49,65,160/- and commission and legal fee paid towards the above purchase

ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 2 (2),, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REKHA SHETTY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman & C.O. No.106/Chny/2019 Assessment Year : 2016-17

property ,sold on 19.10.2015. In her return of income filed for assessment year 2016-17, she claimed deduction, inter alia, at ₹.4,33,00,000/- under section 54, being the amount utilized towards a new house purchased on 26.08.2016. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1

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 20.1. The provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, before its amendment

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 20.1. The provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, before its amendment

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”).

house property 20.1. The provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, before its amendment

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

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)

house 3 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 property for `1,12,00,001/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. As the due date

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

section 54 of the IT Act that assesse should become\nowner of the property.\n11. The CIT (Appeals) and AO do not dispute on the consideration\nreceived by assesse from sale of original asset viz. shares held on long-\nterm basis in Shri Radhakrishna Mills Limited and also the investment\nmade by the Assesse for Purchasing residential house within 1

C.R.PARTHIBAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee it is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1023/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012 - 2013

house property for my residence, within the time limit u/s.54 of the Act. (6) Section 54(1) requires investment of the amount

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

1) appeal raised by the appellant, before him, is opposed to law and unsustainable in the facts and the circumstances of the case. …… 6) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is eligible for claiming capital gains on the entire 7 flats and not merely on one flat. 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that

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

House Property was constructed after demolishing the superstructure of old building. The Ld. AO has perused of the provisions of section 54 of the Act. " 1

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered