RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

delay within the meanings of order of Hon'ble Apex Court\nbeing suo moto writ petition(Civil) Nos.3/2020 dated 23.03.2020 mandating\nextension of timelines on account of contemporaneous Covid-19\npandemic. In respectful compliance to the order of Hon'ble Apex Court the\ndelay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated.\n4.0\nBefore proceeding further, it is necessary to examine

NISHANK SAKARIYA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-4(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

condone the delay of ‘70’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee has raised several grounds against impugned order including the legal issue challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to have re- opened the original assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”) after four years from

V GOVIND (HUF),VELACHERY MAIN ROAD vs. ACIT, GREAMS ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.10 raised before ITAT, which reads as under:- “10. The appellant craves leave to refer to the various documents including sale deeds and sale agreements filed during the course of assessment proceedings and requests that may be considered as part

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

M/S. J.G. EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2376, 2377 & 2378/ Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008- 09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-2012. M/S. Jg Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.55, Narayanamudali Business Circle X (2) Street, Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 079. [Pan Aaafj 3129M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Delay is condoned. Appeals are admitted A reading of the grounds raised by the assessee clearly 3. show that it is aggrieved on treatment of rental income received by it, under the head ‘’Income from House Property’’ and disallowance of the claim of lease rental paid on the land. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI vs. ANJLALI FOUNDATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

condone the delay. 4. M/s. Anjli Foundations, the assessee , a firm formed on 26.07.2005, purchased a vacant land measuring 1 acre and four cents on 28.07.2005. As the owners of the land, the firm entered into a joint development agreement with M/s. Narendra Properties Ltd., the developer, on 16.08.2005. By virtue of the agreement, the assessee- owner had transferred/assigned

CITI FINANCIAL RETAIL SERVICES (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2059 & 2060/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 M/S Citi Financial Retail Services The Assistant Commissioner Of (I) Ltd., V. Income Tax, (Now Known As Citi Corp Finance Company Circle I(3), (India) Ltd.), Chennai - 600 034. 117, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Pan : Aaacn 2379 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone delay of 120 days each in both cases and proceed to deal with the merits. 3. We take up I.T.A. No. 2059/Mds/2014 for assessment year 1999-2000 first raising sole substantive issue of short term capital gains of `29,88,022/-. The assessee is a finance company. It had filed its return on 16.12.1999 admitting income

CITI FINANCIAL RETAIL SERVICES (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2059 & 2060/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 M/S Citi Financial Retail Services The Assistant Commissioner Of (I) Ltd., V. Income Tax, (Now Known As Citi Corp Finance Company Circle I(3), (India) Ltd.), Chennai - 600 034. 117, Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. Pan : Aaacn 2379 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone delay of 120 days each in both cases and proceed to deal with the merits. 3. We take up I.T.A. No. 2059/Mds/2014 for assessment year 1999-2000 first raising sole substantive issue of short term capital gains of `29,88,022/-. The assessee is a finance company. It had filed its return on 16.12.1999 admitting income

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), CHENNAI vs. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1765/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Mr. Arvind Srinivasan Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 61, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 004. Pan: Adcpa0371R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

53A of the IT Act, the AO is entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax, the total income of the assessee whose case is covered by Sec. I53A of the IT Act for each assessment year falling within the six assessment years immediately preceding the previous year in which search was conducted and that even if an assessment order

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. RASI ASSETS CORPORATION, COIMBATORE

In the result, the ground raised in assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed

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

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. CIT-DR assailed the relief granted in the impugned order and submitted that the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement and handed over the possession and therefore, the gains were chargeable to tax in this year. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements to support

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. RASI ASSETS CORPORATION, COIMBATORE

In the result, the ground raised in assessee’s cross-objection stand allowed

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

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. The Ld. CIT-DR assailed the relief granted in the impugned order and submitted that the assessee entered into Joint Development Agreement and handed over the possession and therefore, the gains were chargeable to tax in this year. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements to support