HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

permanent place in Indian market. Had it been the fact that only brand value captured the market, all the companies with reputed brand value should have sustained in Indian market. But the Indian market was unique of its quality and expectation. The Indian market practiced to have loyalty on quality and cost efficient. The Indian market has a major portion

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

permanent place in Indian market. Had it been the fact that only brand value captured the market, all the companies with reputed brand value should have sustained in Indian market. But the Indian market was unique of its quality and expectation. The Indian market practiced to have loyalty on quality and cost efficient. The Indian market has a major portion

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTORS INDIA LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, while CO of the assessee is dismissed, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in the terms indicated above, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dis...

permanent place in Indian market. Had it been the fact that only brand value captured the market, all the companies with reputed brand value should have sustained in Indian market. But the Indian market was unique of its quality and expectation. The Indian market practiced to have loyalty on quality and cost efficient. The Indian market has a major portion

SHRI PREMKUMAR MENON,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-17(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3070/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Premkumar Menon, The Asst. Commissioner Of “Menon Eternity Building” Vs. Income Tax, (10Th Floor), No.165, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

permanent character, and shot be altered without the consent of all apartment owners. The percentage of the undivided interest in such common areas and facilities and the limited common areas and facilities shall not be separated from the apartment to which it appertains, and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the apartment whether or not such interest

GANESH CHANDRASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house property and interest income. The assessee is also a non-resident and citizen of USA and filed return of income with refund claim of "20,05,973/- and the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 13.06.2012 determining refund including interest "21,37,650/- was issued but the cheque remained undelivered due to change

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

TURBO ENERGY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TURBO ENERGY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TURBO ENERGEY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.351/Mds/2013 & Ita Nos.316 & 317/Mds/2014 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10

house R&D facility belong to the eligible 10B units also. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.0 Ground No.5 in Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2007-08 is addition of Rs.77.99 lakhs relating

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

establish that the information, document or material, whether :-23-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 tangible or intangible, is of such nature which incriminates or militates against the person from whom it is found. 48. Further, incriminating evidence may also constitute of information, tangible or intangible which suggests or leads to an inference that the assessee is conducting

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

establish that the information, document or material, whether :-23-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 tangible or intangible, is of such nature which incriminates or militates against the person from whom it is found. 48. Further, incriminating evidence may also constitute of information, tangible or intangible which suggests or leads to an inference that the assessee is conducting

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

establish that the information, document or material, whether :-23-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 tangible or intangible, is of such nature which incriminates or militates against the person from whom it is found. 48. Further, incriminating evidence may also constitute of information, tangible or intangible which suggests or leads to an inference that the assessee is conducting

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

establish that the information, document or material, whether :-23-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 tangible or intangible, is of such nature which incriminates or militates against the person from whom it is found. 48. Further, incriminating evidence may also constitute of information, tangible or intangible which suggests or leads to an inference that the assessee is conducting

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

establish that the information, document or material, whether :-23-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 tangible or intangible, is of such nature which incriminates or militates against the person from whom it is found. 48. Further, incriminating evidence may also constitute of information, tangible or intangible which suggests or leads to an inference that the assessee is conducting

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue