SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

trust created for a religious or charitable purpose. 22. What we find is that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had confirmed the addition u/s. 2(24)(xv) of the Act r.w.s. 56(2)(vii) of the Act. Both these Sections are reproduced hereunder:- Sec. 2(24) ‘’income includes--- (i)................ (ii).......................... (xv) any sum of money or value of property

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

50C, the prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to sale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred for a finite period. In this context, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) has clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and thus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

50C,\nthe prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a finite period. In this context, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra)\nhas clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and\nthus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

SARALA KANKARIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) ignoring the handing over possession in the earlier year. According to him, transfer by virtue of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act was complete in previous year ended 31.03.2006 and the same transaction could not be again considered for taxation in a subsequent assessment year. In any case

ACIT, TRICHY vs. P.MURUGESAN, THANJAVUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Ms. Sujatha 5,00,000/- 3 Shri. Balaji 5,00,000/- 4 Ms. Rajalakshmi 5,00,000/- 5 Shri. Dinesh 6,91,532/- Total 26,91,532/- Vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 30-01-2012, the assessee was requested to give the details of all the above loans along with ledger extracts of I.T.A.Nos

P.MURUGESAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Ms. Sujatha 5,00,000/- 3 Shri. Balaji 5,00,000/- 4 Ms. Rajalakshmi 5,00,000/- 5 Shri. Dinesh 6,91,532/- Total 26,91,532/- Vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 30-01-2012, the assessee was requested to give the details of all the above loans along with ledger extracts of I.T.A.Nos

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI P.JANAKAR, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Ms. Sujatha 5,00,000/- 3 Shri. Balaji 5,00,000/- 4 Ms. Rajalakshmi 5,00,000/- 5 Shri. Dinesh 6,91,532/- Total 26,91,532/- Vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 30-01-2012, the assessee was requested to give the details of all the above loans along with ledger extracts of I.T.A.Nos

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI R.VISWANATHAN, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Ms. Sujatha 5,00,000/- 3 Shri. Balaji 5,00,000/- 4 Ms. Rajalakshmi 5,00,000/- 5 Shri. Dinesh 6,91,532/- Total 26,91,532/- Vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 30-01-2012, the assessee was requested to give the details of all the above loans along with ledger extracts of I.T.A.Nos

SRI PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYATHAMMAL EDUCTIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

2 Ms. Sujatha 5,00,000/- 3 Shri. Balaji 5,00,000/- 4 Ms. Rajalakshmi 5,00,000/- 5 Shri. Dinesh 6,91,532/- Total 26,91,532/- Vide Notice u/s 142(1) dated 30-01-2012, the assessee was requested to give the details of all the above loans along with ledger extracts of I.T.A.Nos

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), TRICHY vs. TEMPLE CONSCIOUSNESS THANJAI NAGARA MANAVALAKKALAI MANDRAM TRUST, THANJAVUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the Trust is eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act and the Trust is not hit by the amended provisions of Sec.2(15) of the Act under the object of "General Public Utility". 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in not upholding