ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. 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)

B‘ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं"ीधु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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

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)

B‘ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीचं"पूजार", लेखा सद"य एवं"ीधु"वु"आर.एलरे"डी,"या"यकसद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 40A(2)(b) for a sum of Rs. 3,42,71,250/- and also disallowed interest on TDS to the tune

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 40A(2)(b) for a sum of Rs. 3,42,71,250/- and also disallowed interest on TDS to the tune

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 40A(2)(b) for a sum of Rs. 3,42,71,250/- and also disallowed interest on TDS to the tune

SRI JANARTHANA SPINNING MILLS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act for two reasons, first there was no proof of rendering any services by the Balakrishnan Minor (HUF) and secondly the services stated to have been rendered only in individual capacity. 9. Even on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition for want of evidence of services rendered

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

40A(2)(b) of the Act and confirmed the disallowance of interest on TDS.\nThe assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A).\n5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and for not deducting the same, section 40a(ia) of the Act applies. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The first point for our consideration is whether the operation of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act introduced through Finance Act. 2012 with effect from 13 I.T.A

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and for not deducting the same, section 40a(ia) of the Act applies. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The first point for our consideration is whether the operation of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act introduced through Finance Act. 2012 with effect from 13 I.T.A

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and for not deducting the same, section 40a(ia) of the Act applies. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The first point for our consideration is whether the operation of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act introduced through Finance Act. 2012 with effect from 13 I.T.A

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

TDS under section 194J of the Act and for not deducting the same, section 40a(ia) of the Act applies. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. The first point for our consideration is whether the operation of second proviso to section 40a(ia) of the Act introduced through Finance Act. 2012 with effect from 13 I.T.A

DCIT, OOTY vs. N.PURUSHOTHAMAN, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

2. Secondly, in the development expenses, it has been proposed to disallow of Rs.1,91,09,889/- towards "being the cash paid to Purusothaman for expense". I have developed the agricultural land that I have purchased and converted them into marketable condition into saleable sites. For these purposes, in order to meet the expenses for the conversion and development charges

N.PURUSHOTHAMAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is party allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.76/Chny/2017 & C.O. No.34/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.76/Chny/2017] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

2. Secondly, in the development expenses, it has been proposed to disallow of Rs.1,91,09,889/- towards "being the cash paid to Purusothaman for expense". I have developed the agricultural land that I have purchased and converted them into marketable condition into saleable sites. For these purposes, in order to meet the expenses for the conversion and development charges

PARRY INFRASTRUCTURE CO P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1) , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 13.2 The CIT(A) has, both in the case of TII and EID, kept on repeating the words “when undivided share of land (UDS) cannot be sold separately without corresponding sale of flats. The UDS is inseparable, meaning thereby, UDS goes along with the sale of flats“. There is no law or rule

M.PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SRI M.PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment

B+C), disallowance u/s.40A(2) will not stand the test of appeal. Therefore the addition u/s.40A(2) is fully allowed in the hands of the assessee company. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 28 We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that even now before us, the ld. Senior Standing Counsel could