UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

house property under Section 24 of the Act. 6. Referring to Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the Ld.counsel

UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

house property under Section 24 of the Act. 6. Referring to Sections 22 and 23 of the Act, the Ld.counsel

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 purchased at Aminjikarai, Chennai. 13.The learned Commissioner(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that though the investment in bank FD is not stated as a medium for claiming exemption under section 54EC the spirit that the sale proceeds should be kept out of circulation in the market for preventing inflation had been served even by the investment

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.

6 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 6.1 After considering the detailed written submissions filed by the assessee as well as considering the facts of the case, the ld. CIT(A) noticed that the Assessing Officer treated the above JDA as transfer within the meaning and provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer specifically invoked section

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the appellants claim for deduction under 24(1)(b) towards interest paid in respect of loan taken for acquisition of the property. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the claim of expenditure towards on account of property tax payment to Rs.8,09,545/- as against the claim

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

6. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in disallowing the appellants claim for deduction under 24(1)(b) towards interest paid in respect of loan taken for acquisition of the property. 7. The learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the claim of expenditure towards on account of property tax payment to Rs.8,09,545/- as against the claim

ACIT, CC- 6(2),, CHENNAI vs. S.N. DAMANI INFRA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3324/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income S.N. Damani Infra Pvt. Ltd., Tax, V. No. 6, Ground Floor, Corporate Circle 6 (2), Rayala Tower, Chennai. 781-785, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaocs 0334C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R

section 27 (iiib) - Accordingly, income earned from letting out shops and stalls was taxed under head 'income from house property' - :-10-: ITA. No: 3324/Chny/2019 Tribunal as well as High Court upheld order of Assessing Officer - Whether since assessee had not established that it was engaged in any systematic or organized activity of providing service to occupiers of shops/stalls, mere fact

ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(2), CHENNAI vs. KKA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 22 provides that rental income from property, being building or land appurtenant thereto, of which the taxpayer is the owner is charged to tax under, the head "Income from house property". It will not make any difference whether the property held by the owner as stock in trade or otherwise. Thus, in respect of property held as stock

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

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)

6 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 receipt and property taxes paid. There is no doubt the property is a building which is subject to rental income and assessed under the head “House property”. The provisions of Section

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act had no applicability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that the land was not owned by the assessee and hence the rental from the building situated in such land could be considered only under the head ‘’Income from Other Sources’’ and not from the head ‘’income from House Property