PADMA VASHI SHEWARAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the impugned is set aside and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2281/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Padma Vashi Shewaramani, The Assistant Director Of No.73, Janki Bhawan, V. Income Tax, Sardar Patel Road, International Taxation, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aayps 4687 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

short term capital gains. (3) Rental income from property treated as business income instead of income from house property. 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 26 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation

M/S MERCANTILE VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.623/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Mercantile Ventures Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of- No.88, Spic House, Income Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm 6095 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri P.V.Sudhakar, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of leasing of immovable properties, investments and man power supply services. The assessee formerly known as M/s.MCC Finance Ltd., had provided unsecured loans to eight investment

ITO, COIMBATORE vs. T.R.K.SARASWATHY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1600 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

short delay of 07 days in filing these two appeals and the same are condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. First we take up ITA No.1600/Mds/2015 for adjudication. None 3. appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. The grievance of the Revenue in this

ITO, CHENNAI vs. K.PRIYA, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1600 /Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008

short delay of 07 days in filing these two appeals and the same are condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. First we take up ITA No.1600/Mds/2015 for adjudication. None 3. appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to decide the case on merits after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. The grievance of the Revenue in this

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

short]. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 4 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we find 2 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condone the delay and admit the Cross-objection. 3.1 So far as, the Cross-objection is concerned, since we have remited the issue to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for denova consideration, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.2 In the result, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condone the delay and admit the Cross-objection. 3.1 So far as, the Cross-objection is concerned, since we have remited the issue to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), for denova consideration, the Cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 3.2 In the result, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly

MIRACLEE RECLAIM RUBBER COIMBATORE (P) LTD.,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Short Term Capital Gains. For this, the PCIT recorded the fact in paragraph Nos.2.1 & 2.2 of his show- cause notice which reads as under: “2.1 On verification of records it is noticed that during the relevant Financial Year, you and your sister concern Mis. Miracle Polymers India Ltd sold a property (land and building) and had sold 3.79 acres

MIRACLE OLYMERS INDIA LTD,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Short Term Capital Gains. For this, the PCIT recorded the fact in paragraph Nos.2.1 & 2.2 of his show- cause notice which reads as under: “2.1 On verification of records it is noticed that during the relevant Financial Year, you and your sister concern Mis. Miracle Polymers India Ltd sold a property (land and building) and had sold 3.79 acres

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , CHENNAI vs. SHRI MOHAMMED DAWOOD SULTAN ABDUL KADAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mohamed Dawood Sultan Abdul Income Tax, Circle 2, Kader, Kolikalpalayam, Thiruvarur, Trichy. Tamil Nadu 610 001. [Pan:Brdps5653L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Cit (Retd.) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 23.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Land Acquisition Compensation Under Compulsory Acquisition By The Government Is Exempt Or Not.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee’s wife initially purchased the property on 16.06.2008 as a power of attorney (POA) holder from Smt. V. Maheswari, Shri K. Balachander and Smt. R. Gunasundari. Same land was transferred by assessee’s wife in the name of the assessee

VINODHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 1.3 The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals) - 18, Chennai dated 08.02.2023 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority considered the maintainability of the assessed Short Term Capital Gains

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal. 4.0 Before proceeding further, we would like to place on record the following brief factual matrix of the case narrated by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. Return of income for AY-2009-10 was filed by the assessee (formerly known as WS Electric Limited) declaring total income Page

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 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) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of an amount of Rs.13

MURUGESAN CHELLAPPA,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

condoned the delay of 28 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and is opposed to the principles

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPINATH RAMAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of above appeals are condoned and appeals filed by the Revenue are admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has, more or less, raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No.292/Chny/2017 for the AY 2012-13, are re-produced as under: ITA Nos.292

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MADHU PARASURAM, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of above appeals are condoned and appeals filed by the Revenue are admitted for adjudication. 3. The Revenue has, more or less, raised common grounds of appeal for both the assessment years. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No.292/Chny/2017 for the AY 2012-13, are re-produced as under: ITA Nos.292

ITO, COIMBATORE vs. K.SHAMEENA, COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 4. The facts of the case are that the AO received intimation from the AO in the case of the assessee’s husband that she along with her husband Shri Anwar Basha sold certain immovable properties and that the capital gains from that sale was not offered