SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section 68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 54F automatically stand deleted

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

section 68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 54F automatically stand deleted

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F, proviso (a)(ii) of the Act, which reads as under:- 54F (1) (a) (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or According to him this property is purchased i.e., any other residential house, other than the new asset, within

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F, proviso (a)(ii) of the Act, which reads as under:- 54F (1) (a) (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or According to him this property is purchased i.e., any other residential house, other than the new asset, within

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15, CHENNAI vs. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54F, proviso (a)(ii) of the Act, which reads as under:- 54F (1) (a) (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or According to him this property is purchased i.e., any other residential house, other than the new asset, within

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

section 54F of the Act and that the same can be denied only if the assessee is owning more than one "Residential property". The Ld. AR in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. I.Ifthiquar Ashiq (2016) 68

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHRI GANGESAN SASEENDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

68,750/- by way of transfer and the Net sale consideration was claimed to be 69,15,260/-and claimed the entire sale consideration as deduction u/s.54F of Income tax act, towards the investment in house property. The AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee since the assessee has entered into contract for construction agreement prior to one year

SREEDHARAN VIJAYAKUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIIONAL TAXATION 2(2) , CHENNAI

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

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

68,50,000 Nil 4.1 On perusal of the details filed by the assessee it was observed that the assessee had invested only Rs.2,37,51,990/- towards purchase and development charges of land at Uthandi Village dated 03.07.2013 as against the sale consideration of Rs.3,96,72,000/- received by him towards sale of land. It was further observed

THOMAS MULAYIMKAL ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

section 54F of the Act on the sale 5 I.T.A. Nos.200 & 199/Chny/22 consideration received of ₹.1,68,00,423/-. The Assessing

LOURDES MARY ARULANANDAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD 22(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

section 54F of the Act on the sale 5 I.T.A. Nos.200 & 199/Chny/22 consideration received of ₹.1,68,00,423/-. The Assessing

BALASUNDARAM MAHALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi Dcit बनाम/ 216, Atd Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiopm-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

68,576/-. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in stating that the appellant owned more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of original asset Which is contrary to the facts and which was never the issue before the Assessing Officer nor was there any such factual finding

A VIJAYAKUMARI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, NCW-1, , THANJAVUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 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) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

section 54F of the Act dealt in the case law quoted by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the case law quoted by the assessee is not having any relevant to the assessee’s case, determined and levied the long term capital gain tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

68 and taxing the same under Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under

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

54F. (1) 84[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long- term capital asset, not being a 85residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee

MR. THIRUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3351/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thirumani, Acit, 260/1, Mint Street, Park Town, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagpt-7541-K] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

68,85,720/- and a demand of Rs.92,54,757/- was raised. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on various grounds. The ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 19.11.2024 decided the appeal as follows: • Upheld the addition made pertaining to disallowance of claim u/s.54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

54F\ndeduction and delete the addition made. Appellant gets relief.\nGrounds of appeal numbers 6 to 10are allowed.”\nAggrieved by the order of the Id.CIT(A), the revenue preferred\nan appeal before us.\n6.\nThe Id.DR, argued that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing\nthe assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54F of the Act, even\nthough in response

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 68 of the Act, it is only the incremental balances during the relevant year that can be taxed as unexplained cash credits; opening balances brought forward from earlier years cannot be added. The Ld. CIT(A)’s conclusions are also supported by the remand proceedings. 61. Accordingly, the impugned addition has been confirmed to the following extent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 68 of the Act, it is only the incremental balances during the relevant year that can be taxed as unexplained cash credits; opening balances brought forward from earlier years cannot be added. The Ld. CIT(A)’s conclusions are also supported by the remand proceedings. 61. Accordingly, the impugned addition has been confirmed to the following extent