BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

333 results for “house property”+ Section 63clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,591Mumbai1,298Karnataka564Bangalore511Chennai333Ahmedabad315Jaipur275Hyderabad183Kolkata172Surat170Cochin133Chandigarh113Indore108Pune99Telangana98Raipur64Calcutta55Lucknow46Visakhapatnam43Cuttack43Rajkot41Nagpur31SC26Amritsar19Dehradun15Agra15Jodhpur14Patna9Guwahati7Rajasthan7Allahabad6Varanasi5Orissa4Ranchi4Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Panaji1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Disallowance54Section 143(3)52Section 14850Section 54F45Section 4042Deduction35Section 14732Section 19528Section 5

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1727/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

Showing 1–20 of 333 · Page 1 of 17

...
28
Section 5423
Capital Gains21

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1632/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

ITA 1675/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Mr.K.G.Raghunath, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

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

ROSHAN DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 792/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 46

63,17,927/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2.1 On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the settlement deed becomes abundantly clear that the assessee’s father has no right or power to alienate the property. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that in the life time of the father, property

DEEP DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 791/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 46

63,17,927/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2.1 On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the settlement deed becomes abundantly clear that the assessee’s father has no right or power to alienate the property. Further, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that in the life time of the father, property

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. M/S. P.R. VENKETARAMA RAJA (HUF), RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3179/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Jagadisan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

63,68,600 Andalpuram, Rajapalayam Total Rs.3,27,94,600 The entire long term capital gains relating to sale consideration on account of sale of properties was claimed as exempt u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on two reasons as follows: (i) The receipt of capital gains on sale of properties mentioned

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

ITA 2145/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 54F

63,82,379/- as not allowable application of expenditure on account of construction of house & CO No.79/Chny/2024 (AY 2020-21) Shri Anil Reddy Yeduguri Sandhinti :: 4 :: property as per section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. KUMARASAMY PILLAI APARNA, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 999/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 999/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kumarasamy Pillai Aparna, Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 43, Kannadasan Salai, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Srds, Non-Corporate Circle -7(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Afzpa-9359-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vikneswaran, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 54

63,80,000 / 8,87,36,400 Rs. 2,79,15,169 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (A) Rs.4,01,74,215 Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 5. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee assailed the action of AO and stated that the reinvestment made in the house

ITO, CHENNAI vs. R.AISHWARYA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1120/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1120/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. R. Aishwarya, Non Corporate Ward 3(1) No.18, Raghave Veera Avenue, Chennai Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Aevpa2044K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate
Section 24Section 48

63,98,540/- on the housing loan paid by the assessee, for the period starting from the date of purchase and ending on the date of sale of property could not be allowed as cost of acquisition/improvement. As per ld. Assessing Officer interest expenditure incurred during the period of ITA No. 1120/Mds/2016. :- 3 -: construction alone could be considered as part

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2885/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: JCITFor Respondent: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viii)

Section 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act has also referred to Profits ‘derived’ and hence direct and immediate nexus of Profits and the business of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of house in India for residential purposes is to be seen. On this threshold, the decision of learned CIT(A) in allowing deduction with respect

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

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

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

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

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

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

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

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

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

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

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

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI R. VIJAY KRISHNAN, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3168/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 3168/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri R. Vijay Krishnan, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 15, Vs. No. 17A-2, Sai Krupa Apartments Chennai. Main Road, Adyar, Chennai. [Pan:Abbpv9714C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

63,830/- after disallowing the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act at ₹.65,27,441/- as well as claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act at ₹.2,30,62,707/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. After considering the submissions of the assessee as well as facts of the case

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1207/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. Srinivasan, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54Section 54F

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1930/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

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

Section 54F

63,300/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has transferred immovable property and computed long term capital gain and after claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) declared Nil income under the head income from capital gains

ITO, NCW - 15 (1), , CHENNAI vs. SHRI KESAVARAMANUJAM SOUNDARARAJAN ANBUSELVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 103/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3285/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr.K.S.Anbuselvan, V. The Income Tax Officer, 109/56, Fifth Street, Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Padmanabhanagar, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. [Pan:Aaepa 3906 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V. Mr.Kesavaramanujam- Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Soundararajananbuselvan, No.56, 5Th Street, Chennai. Padmanabhanagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. [Pan: Aaepa 3906 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : 06.06.2023 सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023

Section 48Section 50CSection 54F

Section 54F of the Act. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the land purchased by the assessee was originally taken on lease by M/s. La Farge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt Ltd from M/s.Trimurthy Associates and it was confirmed by the M/s. La Farge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt Ltd that the cement / RMS block plant were removed / demolished

SHRI K.S. ANBUSELVAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CC-15(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee, as well as the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3285/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3285/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr.K.S.Anbuselvan, V. The Income Tax Officer, 109/56, Fifth Street, Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Padmanabhanagar, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. [Pan:Aaepa 3906 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.103/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V. Mr.Kesavaramanujam- Non-Corporate Ward-15(1), Soundararajananbuselvan, No.56, 5Th Street, Chennai. Padmanabhanagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. [Pan: Aaepa 3906 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : 06.06.2023 सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023

Section 48Section 50CSection 54F

Section 54F of the Act. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that the land purchased by the assessee was originally taken on lease by M/s. La Farge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt Ltd from M/s.Trimurthy Associates and it was confirmed by the M/s. La Farge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt Ltd that the cement / RMS block plant were removed / demolished