ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RUDRADEV AVIATION PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

Gain from Venture : Rs.2,35,00,000 The main issue now before us is, the loss claimed by assessee of Rs.12,37,27,087/- held by CIT(A) as ‘capital loss’. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee is in formative stage and business did not take off and hence, the land was sold

PARANDHAMAN BHAKTHAVATSALA NAIDU HUF,CHENNAI vs. ITO - NON CORP WARD 1(6) CHN, NEW BUILDING, AAYAKAR BHAWAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gains addition. Further, according to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee didn’t submit any relevant documents during the course of assessment proceedings, and therefore, he confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee owned 856 sq.ft. of land

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

capital gains liability on the assessee, the said transaction would have been taxable in the year of entering into JDA i.e. AY 2010-11. Nevertheless, the assessee has offered the transaction in AY 2012-13 which would lend credence to the argument that the assessee made sincere efforts to put a quietus to the possible litigation by accepting the proposal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

capital gain on sale of shares — As regards the issue of Tax residency of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, upon verification of the documents, Information obtained from the FRRO, copies of Visa and Passport etc, Ld.AO noted that Shri. Mahadevan had stayed / resided in India as per below mentioned details:- Total No. of days Total

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

capital gain on sale of shares — As regards the issue of Tax residency of the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, upon verification of the documents, Information obtained from the FRRO, copies of Visa and Passport etc, Ld.AO noted that Shri. Mahadevan had stayed / resided in India as per below mentioned details:- Total No. of days Total

OLYMPIA TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 1, Sidco Income Tax, Chennai-4, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aabco8102F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -4, Chennai, Dated 25.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

253 of the Act. 12. It is submitted that if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned and the appeal is dismissed at the threshold, it will be put to great hardship to the Appellant and no hardship will be caused to the Respondent and department, if the delay in filing appeal is condoned and the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE, MADURAI vs. M/S RAMCO SYSTEMS LIMITED, RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain.\nIn order to assess/examine the same in the hands of the assessee, this case may\nbe reopened.\"\n6.\nA reading of the reasons recorded by the AO to justify re-opening is\nnoted to be regarding allowability of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining\nto AY 2000-01 & 2001-02 to be set-off against income of AY 2009-10.\nHowever

M/S. GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, TIRUPPUR

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

gains\nof business or profession” or “income from other sources”. In case of any conflict\nbetween the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the\nAct shall prevail to the extent. We find this ICDS deals with the treatment of\nGovernment grants. The Government grants are sometimes called by other names\nsuch as subsidies, cash

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, thereby the weighted deduction claimed ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 43 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income tax Act is disallowed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 21.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, thereby the weighted deduction claimed ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 43 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income tax Act is disallowed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 21.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2825, 2826 & 2827/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd, Income Tax, Vs. No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -Ii, Guindy, Chennai 600 101. Chennai 600 032. [Pan Aaaca 4651L] (Department) (Assessee )

Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, thereby the weighted deduction claimed ITA Nos.2825 to 2827, 2834 :- 43 -: to 2839/Mds/2014. u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income tax Act is disallowed. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 21.2 In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

253 dated 31.10.2002. 4. From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists for the purpose of serving under privileged children in the area of education, purpose of serving under

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

253 dated 31.10.2002. 4. From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists From the objects of the Trust, it is noted that, it primarily exists for the purpose of serving under privileged children in the area of education, purpose of serving under

VICTUS DYEINGS ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT , CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

gains of business or profession” or “income\nfrom other sources”. In case of any conflict between the provisions of the\nIncome Tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the Act shall prevail to\nthe extent. We find this ICDS deals with the treatment of Government\ngrants. The Government grants are sometimes called by other names\nsuch as subsidies, cash

KM KNIT WEAR,TIRUPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

gains of business or profession” or “income\nfrom other sources”. In case of any conflict between the provisions of the\nIncome Tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the Act shall prevail to\nthe extent. We find this ICDS deals with the treatment of Government\ngrants. The Government grants are sometimes called by other names\nsuch as subsidies, cash

GATES WEARS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

gains of business or profession” or “income\nfrom other sources”. In case of any conflict between the provisions of the\nIncome Tax Act and the ICDS, the provisions of the Act shall prevail to\nthe extent. We find this ICDS deals with the treatment of Government\ngrants. The Government grants are sometimes called by other names\nsuch as subsidies, cash