SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

104. We note that the assessee claimed purchase of flat at Ram Nagar, Madipakkam for a consideration of ₹.49,95,000/-. In response to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained the source for purchase of the above flat as bank loan of ₹.32.5 lakhs from Reliance Capital and balance of ₹.17,45,000/- by cash

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

104. We note that the assessee claimed purchase of flat at Ram Nagar, Madipakkam for a consideration of ₹.49,95,000/-. In response to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained the source for purchase of the above flat as bank loan of ₹.32.5 lakhs from Reliance Capital and balance of ₹.17,45,000/- by cash

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

104. We note that the assessee claimed purchase of flat at Ram Nagar, Madipakkam for a consideration of ₹.49,95,000/-. In response to the notice of the Assessing Officer, the assessee explained the source for purchase of the above flat as bank loan of ₹.32.5 lakhs from Reliance Capital and balance of ₹.17,45,000/- by cash

ITO, CHENNAI vs. R.AISHWARYA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1120/Mds/2016. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. R. Aishwarya, Non Corporate Ward 3(1) No.18, Raghave Veera Avenue, Chennai Poes Garden, Chennai 600 086. [Pan Aevpa2044K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

104 to substantiate her claim. In this case, the Honourable ITAT has held that such interest paid on the housing loan can be included while computing capital gains. In fact, in the said case, the taxpayer had claimed the interest as deduction, in that year's when the asset was held by the taxpayer and still the Honourable Tribunal held

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

104. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the capital account of the assessee as on 31.03.2017 is reproduced hereunder. MR. AADARSH SURANA S/O. SUDHEER KUMAR SURANA NO: 42, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD CHROMEPET, CHENNAI - 600044 YEAR ENDED: 31.03.2017 ASST. YEAR: 2017-2018 DATE OF BIRTH: 27.08.1982 STATUS: INDIVIDUAL P.A.NO: AAFPA6450M WARD: 1(1) Tambaram COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT

LALITHA KUMARI PRAKASH CHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

104/- is received by the assessee from sale of flats. Therefore, we are of the 11 considered view that the Assessing Officer ought to have taxed consideration received during the assessment year 2015-16 only instead of taxing entire consideration received by the assessee, including consideration received for earlier financial years. Therefore, we are of the considered view that

ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD1(2), CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM ARULSELVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

section 45(3) of the Act. When the land was transferred on 06.04.2012 by way of capital contribution to the partnership firm by the assessee, the said land was an agricultural land and further, the impugned land was used for agricultural purposes. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts, rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards

SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains as claimed by the assessee. 9. Having said so, let us come back to the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has purchased another vacant residential plot :-14-: ITA. No: 749/Chny/2020 for a consideration of Rs. 38,75,400/- vide sale deed dated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

RAMASUBRAMANIAM SRIDHAR PAUL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 19(7), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.973/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramasubramaniam Sridhar Paul Ito बनाम 334/45B, B-Block, Flat 201-202 Urban Ville Non-Corporate Ward-19(7) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. / Vs. Velachery, Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anwps-2829-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-08-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 08-12-2019. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: -

section (1) of Sec.54F of the Act. 3.The CIT(A) failed to understand that Sec.54F does not mandate that the very sum deposited in capital gains account should be invested in purchase or construction of any property within the stipulated time. All that Sec.54F stipulates is that the assessee should purchase or construct a residential property within the stipulated time

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM GAUTAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

section 45(3) of the Act. When the land was transferred on 06.04.2012 by way of capital contribution to the partnership firm by the assessee, the said land was an agricultural land and further, the impugned land was used for agricultural purposes. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts, rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale

M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S SUNDARAM BNP PARIBAS HOME FINANCE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee and

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1888/Chny/2018, 929, 2149 & 2150/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17) M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Ltd., Income Tax, Sundaram Towers, 46,Whites Road Corporate Circle-6(2) Chennai-600 014. Chennai-34. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3219 & 1513/Chny/2018, 301, 829, 2077 & 2078/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2012-13, 2014-15 To 2016-17) Vs M/S. Sundaram Bnp Paribas The Assistant / Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Home Finance Ltd., Corporate Circle-6(2) Sundaram Towers, Chennai-34 46,Whites Road Chennai-600 014. Pan: Aadcs 4826J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain” and “Income from other sources”. In this assessment year also, the income from housing finance business of Rs. 13 8,11,30,267/- was determined indirectly without having any separate accounts. On this 20% was claimed as deduction. The AO observed that investment income, profit on sale of current investment, other operating income, interest receipts, profit on sale