SHILPI RASIWASIA ,KANCHIPURAM vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.865/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shilpi Rasiwasia, Vs. The Assistant Director Of 51, Nemili Village, Income Tax, Sriperumbudur, Cpc, Bangalore. Kanchipuram 602 105. [Pan:Adspr5809D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 29.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual Carrying On Business In The Name Of M/S. Guari Wood Packers Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 31.12.2020 Admitting Total Income Of 2

105. [PAN:ADSPR5809D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed

VENKATESHARAIYER SUBRAMANIAN,HOSUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, HOSUR

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

property’ with the words ‘one residential house’ with effect from 01/04/2015. The rationale of the amendment, as explained in clause 20.3 of the explanatory notes to the Finance Bill was as follows: - 20.3. Certain courts had interpreted that the exemption is also available if investment is made in more than one residential house. The benefit was intended for investment

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

housing facilities not only for the management and office staff but also for the workers of the Special Economic Zones Units: (11) The Special Economic Zone shall be deemed to be a port, airport, inland container deport, land customs station under section 7 of the Customs Act in accordance with the provisions of section 53 from the date notified

M/S ALPHA REALITY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1706/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Alpha Reality Acit No.1-A, 4Th Floor, Jhava Plaza, Non-Corporate Circle-3, बनाम/ Vs. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajfa-8210-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj (Ca)- Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-11-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

105/- in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 7. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard from para 39 to para 41 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the presumptions/conclusions of reached on the nature of business

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

housing facilities not only for the management and office staff\nbut also for the workers of the Special Economic Zone Units:\n(11) The Special Economic Zone shall be deemed to be a port, airport,\ninland container depot, land customs station under section 7 of the\nCustoms Act in accordance with the provisions of section 53 from the\ndate notified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SMT. V.PRREMALATHA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

105/-. That return was proposed under Section 143(1) of the IT Act accepting the loss returned by the respondent. A notice was issued under Section 148 of the IT Act on the ground that the claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable. On 12th May, 2004, a return of income declaring the loss at the same figure

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

house loan has been repaid in full and there are no further dues payable under the loan. On perusal of the paper book page 339 & 340 shows that the assessee availed loan from ICICI Bank for subjected property under consideration and repaid the same which supports the contention of the assessee that loan was availed for construction of asset