S.S. RANGASAMY RAJA,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy

S. S. RANGASAMY RAJA,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1743 & 1744/Chny/2025 िनधा>रण वष> /Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent in availing the remedy

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

condonation of delay 1 filed before the CBDT 1.1. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2018-19 5 1.2. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2019-20 9 1.3. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant 13 for AY 2018-19 1.4. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

condone the delay in filing appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “The order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-12 Chennai dated 30/9/2019 is objected to on the following grounds of appeal Exemption under section 54/54F 1.The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting exemption under

JAMAL MOHIDEEN HAROON IMRAN KHAN,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORORATE WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.452/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jamal Mohideen Haroon Imran Khan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15/7, Vijayaragava Road First Street, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaopi4540B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 23.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 227 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: 1. I Am An Individual & Petitioner/Appellant In The Impugned Proceedings Before This Hon’Ble Tribunal. I Am Well Acquainted With The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

227 days in filing the Tax Case Appeal and thus render justice. 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 2.2 The ld. DR has objected to the above submissions of the assessee. 2.3 We have heard the ld. DR and considered the submissions made in the affidavit for condonation

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. THE MADRAS SEVA SADN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and C

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

condonation of delay. In my ITA No.974/2014 & :- 5 -: CO No.30/2015. considered opinion that in cases where the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, delay occurred in filing the audit report, or for bonafide reasons, form 10 could not be filed on time, the exemption as available to such trust under section 11 and 12 may not be denied

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

delay of 35 days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. Since common issue has been raised on identical facts, we shall take up the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Mall Management services, hotel

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

delay of 35 days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. Since common issue has been raised on identical facts, we shall take up the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Mall Management services, hotel

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

delay of 35 days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. Since common issue has been raised on identical facts, we shall take up the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Mall Management services, hotel

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

delay of 35 days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. Since common issue has been raised on identical facts, we shall take up the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Mall Management services, hotel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of `2′ days in filing of the appeal and the\nappeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits.\n3. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the present appeal are that, a\nsearch action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jayapriya group on 16-\n12-2021. In the course of search

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. MS DAR PARADISE PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

delay in filing of appeal by the Assessing Officer is condoned. 6. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant M/s. DAR Paradise Pvt Ltd., is engaged in the business of trading in gold jewellery and bullion. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017, declaring a total income

ARAVINTHYAN R,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-8(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.22/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Aravinthan R. The Income Tax Officer, (Wrongly Mentioned As Aravind R.) Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(3), No. 29-30, Block 2, 3Rd Floor, 39/8, No. 121, M.G. Road, Swathi Tejas Apartments, Mount Chennai 600 034. Poonamalle Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai 600 089. [Pan: Ackpa9096N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Bharath, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. There is a delay of 227 days in filing the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The appeal assails common appellate order dated 09.11.2017. The grounds taken in AY 2012-13 read as under: - 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO is contrary to the provisions of the Income

RBL HOTELS PVT LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN YS LEBARA HOTELS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORP CIR-4(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The appeal assails common appellate order dated 09.11.2017. The grounds taken in AY 2012-13 read as under: - 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the AO is contrary to the provisions of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD -3(1), CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI vs. TSL TECHNO SERVICES LIMITED(TTK HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common issue in these three appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO towards logo charges by following the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case, which has been challenged in further appeal u/s.260A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. TSL TECHNO SERVICES LIMITED(TTK HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common issue in these three appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO towards logo charges by following the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case, which has been challenged in further appeal u/s.260A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-3(1), CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. TSL TECHNO SERVICES LIMITED(TTK HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication. 3. The first common issue in these three appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO towards logo charges by following the Tribunal’s decision in assessee’s own case, which has been challenged in further appeal u/s.260A