Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4

High Court 29 Jun 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4
Date of order
29 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29/6/2016 C O R A M The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai....Appellant Vs Shri A.Balaramrep. By Shri A.Balaji154 Kutchery RoadChennai 4. ...Respondent Prayer:Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 7/10/2005 in ITA No.956/Mds/96. For appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. For respondent : No appearance- - - - - - J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J) This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras, dated 7/10/2005. 2. The substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal is:- “Whetheronthefactsand circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that investment in construction of a commercial complex is sufficient to claim the benefit of Sec.54F of the Income Tax Act?” 3. Though Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department made submissions on the substantial questions of law, on going through the materials on record, we find that the tax demanded inclusive of interest is Rs.3,32,032/- and that the same falls within the ambit of Circular bearing No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015. 4. In the light of the aforesaid Circular, while dismissing the Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006, substantial question of law raised is left open. No costs. mvs.Index: yes/Nowebsite: Yes/No. (S.M.K.,J) (D.K.K.,J) 29[th] June 2016. 4 S.MANIKUMAR,J a n d D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J mvs. Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006 29/6/2016
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan