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

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.690/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Ramakrishnan Prabhu Jyothi, Race Course, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641018, [Pan: Adjpp4946N] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-5, Coimbatore. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.P.Vijay Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2029-20/1026334108(1) Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), For The

delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated. 4.0 Before proceeding further, it is necessary to examine in brief factual matrix of the case, as noted from the order of the CIT(A) Supra. ".......2. The assesse an individual e-filed his R/l belatedly on 31.03.2018 admitting an income of Rs.14,69,64,500/-. The case was selected for limited

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

condone the delay and treat the reasons as 'sufficient cause' and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the Revenue read as under:- "1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reopening when the issue for which