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

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. The assessee being aggrieved by revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT u/s

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

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. The assessee being aggrieved by revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT u/s

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

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. The assessee being aggrieved by revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT u/s

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

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. The assessee being aggrieved by revisionary order dated 22.01.2010 passed by learned CIT u/s

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act and the AO found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 o found that the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54 of the Act and therefore denied the same, however, at the same time, the AO found and therefore

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

54F of the Act merely on the ground of nonproduction of individual bills/vouchers towards construction which were unavailable on account of passage of time was wrong, erroneous and bad in the eyes of law. 13. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 1,50,000/being interest paid as unaccounted in the computation of taxable total income without

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -15(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI RAMACHANDRA RAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 58/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), 21B, Deccan Parvathy, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206, Wanaparthy Kannappa Nagar Extension, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aehpr6467D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act

u/s 54EC and 54F is not applicable in this case as it is not a Long Term Capital Gain. To bring the same to taxation the case is reopened. Since, the scrutiny assessment is getting time barred by 31.12.2016, you are required to furnish the relevant details on or before 22.09.2016 and the same day your case is posted

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment notices ITA No.567 /Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 & SP No.24/Chny/2024 for AY 2014-15 Shri Jesudason Biji :: 16 :: has also observed that if the law permits the revenue to take further steps in the matter they shall be at liberty to do so. 6. Having taken note of the substituted sections 147-151 of the Act by the Finance

R.RAJAGOPAL TONDAIMAN,TRICHY vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.525/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sri R. Rajagopal Tondaiman, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 4-D, New No. 22, Collector Income Tax, Office Road, Trichy 620 001. Central Circle 1, Trichy. [Pan:Afbpr0712E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 30.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is A Hereditary Of Raja Of Pudukottai & Stated That He Is Assessed To Tax In The Status Of Huf & Individual. The Property At Cenotaph Road, Chennai Was Given To M/S. Doshi Housing Ltd. On A Development Agreement Entered Into On 30.01.2006 Through A Power Of Attorney. The Assessing Officer Has 2

u/s. 148. 3 I.T.A. No.525/Chny/20 After following due procedure and considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 29.12.2016 by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.76,95,635/- after disallowing the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act. On appeal

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

reassessment u/s 147. The assessee also assailed the proceedings on 6 the ground that sanction issued u/s 151 was given in a mechanical and casual manner. The assessee has also challenged the legality of proceedings u/s 153C. Since the larger issues including legal issues are already pending before first appellate authority, the order passed by Ld. AO, in our considered

ACIT, NAGERCOIL vs. SHRI J. RAJ PRABHU, NAGERCOIL

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

54F of the Act nor produced any evidence to the extent of Rs. 4,09,239/- and in respect of second claim of exemption of Rs. 66,95,823/-. The Assessing Officer dealt on the disputed issue at Page 3 of the order and observed that the assessee could not produce the evidence of construction or purchase of Residential house

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

reassessment proceedings and deduction u/s 54. The correct provision under which the deduction would be available to the assessee is Sec.54F and not Sec.54 since the assessee has parted with land and invested the same in residential properties. Therefore, the claim of the assessee would be ascertained at the threshold of provisions of Sec.54F. 6. We find that the original

HITESH KUMAR PRITHVIRAJ KAWAD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,NON-CORPORTEN CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment was completed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, vide order dated 24.09.2021, wherein the claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,52,01,494/- was denied by the AO for the reason :-4-: ITA. No:352 /Chny/2024 that the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset, thereby

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

54F, 54G and 54 H, be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place”. The gains on transfer of these participation rights is, therefore, required to be I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 15 of 21 treated as capital

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 147 & proviso to it were not fulfilled. The Ld.AR submitted that initiation of reassessment would have been permissible Mr. Murali Krishna Yenugula :: 7 :: only if the AO was having in his possession fresh and tangible material which came in his possession subsequent to passing of the order u/s.143(3) and its relation with formation of belief should have been

ACIT, CUDDALORE vs. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI, CHIDAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dealt on the reasons for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act as there was no evidence in earlier assessment to prove the assessment record is complete and discussed in para 3 & 4 of his order as reasons being genuine and there was a scope for ITA No. 415/2015 & :- 5 -: CO.43/2015

SASIKALA RAGHUPATHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), Iv Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaafr5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ca Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit

147 & 148 of the Act was completed on 30.05.2012 and the claim of deduction U/s.54F of the Act was allowed after due consideration. The gist of the decision is extracted herein below for reference:- “3. On scrutiny it is found that the assessee sold her shares of BGR Energy Systems Limited in ITP (23,14,000 shares @ Rs.480/- each

ITO WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM vs. RAJKUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs Mr. Rajkumar, Ward-1 17, High Road, Thirumazhisai Kanchipuram. Chennai-602 107. Pan: Aehpr 1513A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

147 of the Act, on 19.07.2017 and determined total 4 income at Rs.11,94,300/- by making additions towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at Rs.2,63,628/- on the ground that the assessee has claimed deduction for very same house property in the immediately preceding financial year. The Assessing Officer had also made