ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

properties, future potential for development, etc’’. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the 3. assessment year 2009-10, claimed various expenses, like architect fee etc of "17,70,000/- - without deducting any TDS and also made short deduction of TDS on expenses to the extent of "13,74,438/--. Hence, the Assessing Officer invoked

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.

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the details as was furnished before the Assessing Officer and by considering the written submissions, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made towards long term capital gains. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, by filling

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

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 56(2)(vii)(c) 92,95,305 (15.1-15.5) Foreign Travel Expenses Unexplained investment u/s 69 Unexplained money 2,48,407 (11.5) 8,24,774 (13.4) 1,68,000 (12.5) 25,200 (12.6) 3,40,000 (12.7) 1,50,000 (14.1-14.6) 3,96,016 (11.5) 8,25,418 (13.4) 1,68,000 (12.5) 25,200 (12.6) 3

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

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Properties towards low Fair rent Rs. 3,40,000/- (as in para 12.7) C. Income from Business as returned (Rs. 21,79,744/-) Rs. 4,65,000/- D. Income from Other Sources Rs. 5,60,470/- as returned Add: Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) (as Rs. 1,38,70,048/- in paras 14.1 to 14.13) Add: Addition

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

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

P. ANANTHRAM,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COMBATORE MAIN BUILDING, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

property used for residence. Section 54 specifically provides that in the case of capital gains arising from the transfer of long term capital asset, being a residential house, exemption would be available if the assessee has purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place, a residential house

P.R.EASWAR KUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 16 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 54 of the Act because the asset sold by the assessee is a residential house and he has utilized the sale proceeds of the residential house for construction of a new residential house property within the stipulated period of 3 years and the occasion for remitting the sale proceeds in the capital gain scheme account did not arise because

MRS. RAJYASHREE SHYAM,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 18 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2114/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-2017. Rajyashree Shyam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner No.A-1405, Of Income Tax, Radiance Mandarin, Corporate Circle 18(1) No.1, Pallavaram Chennai 600 034. Thioraipakkam Raidal Road, Chennai 600 097. [Pan Agcps 0649F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property was acquired within the time limits specified under Section 54. 2.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee is not required under the provisions of section 54 to establish the nexus between the amount of sale consideration and the cost of new asset. :- 3 -: 2.5 The Appellant submits that Section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

3. CIT vs KEI Indusrtries Ltd., 373 ITR 574 (Del) 4. CIT vs Galaxy Surfactants Ltd., 343 ITR 108 (Del) 5. TCA No.448 of 2019 remanding the matter in ITA No.1782/Mds/2012 11. Ld counsel by referring to para 7 of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries Ltd(supra) submitted that sub-section

KUMARAVELU VARADHARAJAN @ K.VARADHARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.617/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Kumaravelu Varadharajan @ K. The Income Tax Officer, Varadharajan, No. 11/1, Narasimma Vs. International Taxation Ii(2), Nagar, 1St Street, Kodungaiyur, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 112. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Abwpv4091P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Gopikrishna, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R

70, Ramasamy Street, Mannady, Chennai along with other co-owners for a sale consideration of ₹.75,00,000/- . The assessee was holding 1/4th share in the said property. The assessee was asked to explain why the cost of inflation index relating to FY 2004-05 should not be taken as the property was settled in favour of the assessee only

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), CHENNAI vs. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1765/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Mr. Arvind Srinivasan Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 61, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 004. Pan: Adcpa0371R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

house property, capital gains and business of brokerage and commission. In the profit and loss account a number of expenses have been debited for which he was requested to furnish the evidences vide questionnaire dated 11.01.2013, but no evidences whatsoever have been furnished. Only the ledger accounts were furnished. Hence, 50% of the expenses on electricity charges

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

house property as also that the AO has not verify as to whether conditions as prescribed u/s 54F were fulfilled by the assessee or not. Thus, learned CIT vide revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed u/s.263 of the 1961 Act held that assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed by AO as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

K.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1762, 1763, 1764 & 1765/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2009-10

Section 69C of the Act. 12. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer found that there was inadequate drawing for household expenditure. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed opening cash balance of `24,56,500/-. The Assessing Officer estimated the expenditure at `3,60,000/- for the assessment year