ACIT, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of Revenue in 345/2013 is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G.Pavan Kumar

747, the CIT(A) observed that the claim of depreciation is a normal expenditure and the depreciation is calculated according to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The depreciable asset have been acquired on account of capital expenditure in the previous year as well current year. According to CIT(A), the claim of depreciation is an allowable expenditure as part

ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3 (3), CHENNAI vs. M/S LAND MARVEL HOMES , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1055/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Land Marvel Homes, The Acit, V. 45-47, Old No. 22-23, Central Circle -3(3), 3Rd Floor, 1St Main Road, Chennai. Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan:Aabfl-4387-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri. Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

747/- is the current year profit and the balance is 'Revaluation Reserve’ of Rs.12,32,92,525/- created in the current year as a result of revaluation of 73.62 cents of land situated at Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai, at Rs 17.50 crore based on Valuation Report of 'Licensed Engineer' dated 20.3.2012. On cross-verification of Fixed Assets

M P SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 509/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

747 B. ADHOC DISALLOWANCE - GROUND 4 : 2. In the Order, the Appellant's Charitable activity and nature have not been questioned by the AO and it is undisputed. This is clear inter alia from the fact that 15% exemption, capital additions of Rs.5,47,908/- and application of preceding years' accumulation under Section 11(2) of Rs.1

TMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUNELVELI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.788/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., The Acit, 57 V E Road, Circle-1, Tuticorin Central Bus Stand, Tirunelveli. S.O. Thoothukudi, Tuticorin-628 002. [Pan: Aaact 5558 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1) for allowance of capital expenditure by way of royalty to the tune of `39,57,72,326/- in lieu of technical knowledge and depreciation of fixed assets was allowed. Later, reassessment proceedings were initiated on the premise that the scrutiny assessment originally completed, was in ignorance of a binding decision of Supreme Court in Southern Switchgears

MMRF REALITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.627/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mmrf Realty & Infrastructure Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., No. 21, Indira Nagar, Income Tax, 1St Avenue, Adyar, Corporate Circle -4(1), Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aahcm1575E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 20.12.2017 In Ita No. 162/15-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Enhancing The Assessment Is Wrong, Illegal, Unjust, Arbitrary & Is Liable To Set Aside.

747/ as expenditure covered u/s.35D on the assumption that the Appellant's business operations had not commenced. 4. The commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the depreciation of Rs. 13,503/-on office furniture and computer. 5.1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the professional charges of Rs. 7,50,000/- is attributable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. NAPC PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

747/-. Further, the case was\nselected for complete scrutiny and statutory notices were issued\nto the assessee. The AO thereafter completed the assessment\nU/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B vide order dated 18/09/2021 assessed\nincome at Rs.43,56,64,196/-. In completing the assessment,\nthe AO has done the following:\n\"4. In completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has:\n(a) Estimated