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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

6 months\nPeriod from\n28.12.2019 to\n30.06.2019 is\nexcluded\n:- 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

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

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

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

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

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e ed a Scheme called "the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after 'the Scheme') which provide provided that (a) the assessment, reassessment or that (a) the assessment, reassessment

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

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e ed a Scheme called "the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after 'the Scheme') which provide provided that (a) the assessment, reassessment or that (a) the assessment, reassessment

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

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e ed a Scheme called "the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after 'the Scheme') which provide provided that (a) the assessment, reassessment or that (a) the assessment, reassessment

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

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e ed a Scheme called "the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after 'the Scheme') which provide provided that (a) the assessment, reassessment or that (a) the assessment, reassessment

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

In the result, the the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed and the assessee is allowed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

House of Parliament] and formulated a Scheme called "the e ed a Scheme called "the e- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022"(herein after 'the Scheme') which provide provided that (a) the assessment, reassessment or that (a) the assessment, reassessment

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act\nat para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed\ndividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of\nRs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned\norder

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

house property and claimed deduction of 30% from annual property. Therefore, the appellant's contention that this property cannot be considered under Proviso to Section 54F is not acceptable. Since the appellant held two properties on the date of transfer of land, the appellant is not entitled to deduction u/s 54F in respect of new investment. Therefore, the action

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

In the result, the quantum\nNo

sections": ["23(1)", "23(5)", "143(3)", "144B", "270A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "24(b)", "36(1)(va)", "2(24)(x)", "270A(9)", "270A(8)", "270A(3)", "270A(6)(b)", "143(1)"], "issues": "Whether the addition of deemed income from house property

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

section 54F :-5-: ITA. No: 653/Chny/2023 of the Act, the assessee ought to have invested full value of consideration adopted for computation of capital gains at Rs. 56,34,400/-. Since, the assessee has invested partial sale consideration for purchase of new residential house property, allowed proportionate deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and determined taxable long term capital gains

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

6. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reasons given for the restriction of the said claim of tax exemption/deduction u/s.54 of the Act without cross verification were wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 7. The CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the evidence/facts placed on record were completely misread as well as overlooked while restricting

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 at Rs.14,74,233/-. 28. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2602/Chny/2025 is partly allowed. 29. In so far as the appeal arising from the penalty order passed in terms of Section 270A of the Act, we find that the said penalty was levied in consequent to making a deeming addition