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)

house property in her Name. (ii) The Property was sold in April 2015 and utilization of sale proceedsfor purchase of new property was made from January 2016, onwards. Total amount of Rs.1.55 crs was paid to the builder for the acquisition of the new property. (iii) An amount of Rs.22 lacs was deposited into the Capital Gain Account Scheme (CGAS

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

79,182 – IFHP Rs.38,75,078 – IFHP Rs.68,69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

79,182 – IFHP Rs.38,75,078 – IFHP Rs.68,69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

79,182 – IFHP Rs.38,75,078 – IFHP Rs.68,69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

79,182 – IFHP Rs.38,75,078 – IFHP Rs.68,69,738 – IFHP [PGBP: Profits and Gains from Business or Profession IFHP: Income from House Property] It is stated by the appellant that the expenses under the head Depreciation on building and furniture fittings, repairs & maintenance (Building & Others), Lease rent and insurance are commonly related to house property and business and hence

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

Bench: This Tribunal.

House property Rs. (35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur

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 reads as follows, "…….. and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house." From the above, it is evidently clear that the investment in the construction of new house

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-:

House property Rs. (35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur

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

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

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

79[the residential house] so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

79 was taken on lease by the assessee for a period of 27 years. Since, the property was taken on lease for a period exceeding 12 years, as per provisions of sub s. (111b) of s. 27 r/w clause (f) of s. 269UA of the Act, the assessee is deemed to be the owner of the property. Accordingly, the rental

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

79 was taken on lease by the assessee for a period of 27 years. Since, the property was taken on lease for a period exceeding 12 years, as per provisions of sub s. (111b) of s. 27 r/w clause (f) of s. 269UA of the Act, the assessee is deemed to be the owner of the property. Accordingly, the rental

SHRI SHANTHILAL MOVJI BHAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 6 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1344, 1345 & 1346/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12

79 was taken on lease by the assessee for a period of 27 years. Since, the property was taken on lease for a period exceeding 12 years, as per provisions of sub s. (111b) of s. 27 r/w clause (f) of s. 269UA of the Act, the assessee is deemed to be the owner of the property. Accordingly, the rental

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

79) ELT 241]. We find that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 16 :: not assailed such a finding of Ld CIT(A), hence such a finding of First Appellate Authority crystallizes and the observation made in the impugned order that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

79) ELT 241]. We find that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 16 :: not assailed such a finding of Ld CIT(A), hence such a finding of First Appellate Authority crystallizes and the observation made in the impugned order that

BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS, ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENT. CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

79) ELT 241]. We find that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 16 :: not assailed such a finding of Ld CIT(A), hence such a finding of First Appellate Authority crystallizes and the observation made in the impugned order that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. BSR BUILDERS ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1311 & 1312/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 V. Bsr Builders Engineers Contractors, The Dcit, No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1274 & 1561/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. The Dcit / Acit, Bsr Builders Engineers Central Circle-2(3), Contractors, Chennai. No.28, Bsr Janus, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aagfb 7140 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

79) ELT 241]. We find that in the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has ITA Nos.1274, 1311, 1312 & 1561/Chny/2025 CO Nos.39 & 47/Chny/2025 (AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18) BSR Builders Engineers Contractors :: 16 :: not assailed such a finding of Ld CIT(A), hence such a finding of First Appellate Authority crystallizes and the observation made in the impugned order that

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

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

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 property has been disallowed without considering the sale agreement

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

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

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

property as per section 54F of the Act. Further, the AO noted that the assessee had claimed to have made expenditure to architect of Rs.33,80,800/- for building of the house in question. However, since he submitted proof of payment of only Rs.17,70,000/-, he disallowed balance amount of Rs.16,10,800/-. Thus, the AO disallowed Rs.2,79

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act , the eligible business is of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India for residential purposes . The AO observed that the assessee has claimed deduction to the tune of 20% of total business income instead of profits derived from providing long term finance for construction or purchase