ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

section 11 benefit was not available. d) AR then drew attention to circular no. 883 dated 24/09/1975 and case of DIT(E) vs. D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust (2001) 167 CTR (Delhi) 120, as per which low capital gains

ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

section 11 benefit was not available. d) AR then drew attention to circular no. 883 dated 24/09/1975 and case of DIT(E) vs. D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust (2001) 167 CTR (Delhi) 120, as per which low capital gains

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

167 per Sq. ft. for construction and maintaining the building for nearly four decades. We have gone through the cost of improvements admitted by the assessee at Rs. 10,00,000/- i.e., in the year 1982 at Rs. 1,38,291/- for construction of ground floor, in the year 1982 Rs. 1,11,709/- for construction of first floor

SHRI SURESH ALLADA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -I(I), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

167 per Sq. ft. for construction and maintaining the building for nearly four decades. We have gone through the cost of improvements admitted by the assessee at Rs. 10,00,000/- i.e., in the year 1982 at Rs. 1,38,291/- for construction of ground floor, in the year 1982 Rs. 1,11,709/- for construction of first floor

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

167/- Investment made in capital gains account scheme Rs. 20,20,000/- 3. To verify whether any residential house was built or constructed by the assessee in the nanja land, the AO caused an enquiry and found from them that there was an incomplete structure at one corner of land and it does not have any kind of resemblance

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

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

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

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

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

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

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

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains tax. 7. Per Contra, ld.CIT-DR stating that the brand value was created in the books of accounts of the partnership firm as on 30.04.2008 and this firm was converted into a Public Ltd. Co. i.e. the assessee company. He stated that the so called brand value was never existed in the books of the partnership firm V.V.Vanniaperumal & Sons

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains account. The appellant being innovative in approach constructed an energy efficient greenhouse in line with the various renewable energy initiatives undertaken by the Government of India, which cannot become a hurdle in accepting the construction of a house for allowing the benefit of54F deduction. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to allow the 54F deduction and delete

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the judicial trend in this regard would vitiate the related findings in the impugned order. 10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would