DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: 12. It is further noted that the Tribunal has dealt with the disallowance made due to capitalization of assets in advance in the Thiruvottiyur R&D Unit by holding as under: 12.7 Issue No.4: Disallowance due to capitalisation of assets in advance in the Thiruvottiyur R&D unit: Contention of AO/DRP: The AO has examined, a sample

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

10 :: 12. It is further noted that the Tribunal has dealt with the disallowance made due to capitalization of assets in advance in the Thiruvottiyur R&D Unit by holding as under: 12.7 Issue No.4: Disallowance due to capitalisation of assets in advance in the Thiruvottiyur R&D unit: Contention of AO/DRP: The AO has examined, a sample

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house scientific research and he stated that the assessee is not engaged in manufacture of any of the items specified in Schedule-Xl of the IT Act. In accordance with the provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act, a company engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing specified in the list contained in the Eleventh Schedule

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

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 142(2A) of IT Act, 1961. You are requested to file your response on or before 16.12.2019 failing which it will be construed that you have no objection for the same.” 9. The assessee vide response dated 16.12.2019 had expressed no objection to the proposal to refer the pending assessment for special audit u/s.142(2A) of the Act. 10

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

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

10,81,52,783/- and income from business a loss of ₹.9,43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

10,81,52,783/- and income from business a loss of ₹.9,43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

10,81,52,783/- and income from business a loss of ₹.9,43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

10,81,52,783/- and income from business a loss of ₹.9,43,28,803/-. While computing the 3 I.T.A. Nos. 2202-2205/Chny/19 income the assessee company has apportioned expenditure in the ratio of 50:50 based on the area. However, on verifying the turnover from house property and business income, the Assessing Officer determined the ratio

SENTHIL KUMAR (HUF),TUTICORIN CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, , TUTICORIN CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 653/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Senthil Kumar (Huf) Ito, 34B/4, Briyant Nagar, V. Ward-4, 4Th Street Middle, Tuticorin. Bryant Nagar, Tuticorin – 628 008 . [Pan: Abahs-1591-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

section 54F of the Act, in order to get deduction towards capital gain, the assessee needs to invest sale consideration received from transfer of property for purchase/construction of new house property. In case the assessee has invested part of sale consideration, then proportionate deduction is allowed. In the present case, the Assessing Officer after considering relevant facts has rightly recomputed

DOSHI ESTATES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

35. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that the share of profit given to the sons of the land owners is nothing but sale consideration pertaining to the land. 10 I.T.A. No.3463/Chny/16 I.T.A. No.966/Chny/17 9. Referring to the assessment order, more particularly para 6, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the claim of the assessee that

DOSHI ESTATES,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

35. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer found that the share of profit given to the sons of the land owners is nothing but sale consideration pertaining to the land. 10 I.T.A. No.3463/Chny/16 I.T.A. No.966/Chny/17 9. Referring to the assessment order, more particularly para 6, the Ld. D.R. pointed out that the claim of the assessee that

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

35,97,940/- and a tax demand of Rs.18,47,940/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a rectification petition u/s.154 dated 07.03.2022 to rectify the following mistakes in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act: Income from House property inadvertently not reduced from “business income” and not disclosed under the head “income from house property” :-5-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

35,55,580/-. The assessee paid capital gains tax on some portion, purchased bonds for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s.50EC of the Act and claimed exemption u/s.54F of the Act for Rs.3,10,00,000/- by depositing the said amount in capital gain deposit account with Indian Overseas Bank. As per section 54F, amount which was kept

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

35,78,153 Sampath/ Anitha 5,69,32,956 Selvam/ Preetha 82,10,279 Total 7,87,21,388 5. Ld. Assessing Officer, thereafter computed the income of the assessee starting from the surplus shown by it in its Income and Expenditure account for the respective assessment years, after making disallowance for loss on sale of assets, write

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

35,78,153 Sampath/ Anitha 5,69,32,956 Selvam/ Preetha 82,10,279 Total 7,87,21,388 5. Ld. Assessing Officer, thereafter computed the income of the assessee starting from the surplus shown by it in its Income and Expenditure account for the respective assessment years, after making disallowance for loss on sale of assets, write

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

35,78,153 Sampath/ Anitha 5,69,32,956 Selvam/ Preetha 82,10,279 Total 7,87,21,388 5. Ld. Assessing Officer, thereafter computed the income of the assessee starting from the surplus shown by it in its Income and Expenditure account for the respective assessment years, after making disallowance for loss on sale of assets, write

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

35,78,153 Sampath/ Anitha 5,69,32,956 Selvam/ Preetha 82,10,279 Total 7,87,21,388 5. Ld. Assessing Officer, thereafter computed the income of the assessee starting from the surplus shown by it in its Income and Expenditure account for the respective assessment years, after making disallowance for loss on sale of assets, write