ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

house property' in respect of 3 properties other than a self- occupied property is offered in occupied property is offered in the return of income. As per the conditions laid the return of income. As per the conditions laid down in section 54F

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -15(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI RAMACHANDRA RAMAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 58/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), 21B, Deccan Parvathy, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206, Wanaparthy Kannappa Nagar Extension, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aehpr6467D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act

3) of the Act was completed on 08.12.2011, wherein, the Assessing Officer has verified the claim of deduction under section 54EC and 54F of the Act at para 7 and 8 of the assessment and accepted the claim of deduction under section 54EC of the Act as well as restricted the claim of deduction under section 54F

N RAMASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house by means of perpetual lease exceeding twelve years, it has to be construed as acquisition of property / purchase of property within the meaning of Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Hence, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order of the Principal Commissioner passed under Section

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

3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in different addresses. Moreover, the case law relied on by the ld. CIT(A), the multiple reinvested properties were located

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

3. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that even before the amendment to section 54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in different addresses. Moreover, the case law relied on by the ld. CIT(A), the multiple reinvested properties were located

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”).

54F of the Act by the Finance Act, 2014, the section did not envisage the reinvestment in multiple properties located in different addresses. Moreover, the case law relied on 3 I.T.A. No.1112/Chny/18 by the ld. CIT(A), the multiple reinvested properties were located in the same building or address and thus, the both the case law have no application

M.S.AMARESAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. M.S.Amaresan Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of S-101, 4Th Main Road, Income Tax , Anna Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Chennai. Chennai-600040. Pan : Aafpa 2740N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By Mr. N.Arunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23. 12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.24/Cit(A)6/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Partial Reworking Of The Claim For Tax Exemption U/S 54F Of The Act In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Misconstruction Of Section 54F Of The Act Would Vitiate The Decision Rendered In Para 4.3 Of The Impugned Order & Ought

3 other evidences for transfer of property and purchase deed for reinvestment of sale consideration for purchasing residential house to claim exemption under section 54F

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 property. The Revenue has raised the grounds before us that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to 8 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 allow exemption to the assessee under Section 54 or alternative claim under Section 54F of the Act. The property was sold on 03.07.2009. Even though it is vacant land, without prejudice to the rights

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

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

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of exemption by the Assessing Officer by invoking the First Proviso to Section 54F of the Act which is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was in possession of only one residential property

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

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

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

house property at Vijayaraghavachari Road, T. Nagar and admitted capital gains after claiming indexation on cost of purchase. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54 as well as under section 54F of the Act and arrived at taxable long term capital gains of ₹.5,27,40,546/-. From the sale deed furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property in favour of the assessee till this date, though more than 3 years have lapsed. 2.4)The Ld CIT(A) failed to that as per requirement off section 54F

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property in favour of the assessee till this date, though more than 3 years have lapsed. 2.4)The Ld CIT(A) failed to that as per requirement off section 54F

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

house property in favour of the assessee till this date, though more than 3 years have lapsed. 2.4)The Ld CIT(A) failed to that as per requirement off section 54F

JAGDISH RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

3 years, but has not satisfied the conditions prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 54F of the Act, by investing the sale consideration in capital gain deposit scheme on or before furnishing return of income and hence, opined that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s.54F of the Act and hence, rejected deduction claim of Rs.13