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

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

109/-." 3.8 Following the above decision (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)’s order deleting the addition made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. 3.9 Overall therefore, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed and Ground No. 3 of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. Ground

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69\n1,60,46,854\n2\nInterest income omitted to be admitted

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2), , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69\n1,60,46,854\n2\nInterest income omitted to be admitted

THE MUSIC ACADEMY MADRAS,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house ; or (C) any office appliances or road transport vehicles ; or (D) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year ; (iii) in the case

SYEDHUSSAIN SYED ASIF,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1 HOSUR, HOSUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.274/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Syed Hussain Syed Asif, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Alpha Medicals No.74-A, 20/3, Income Tax, Bagalur Road, Circle 1, (Opp) Housing Board Entrance, Hosur. Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Bwsps 5229L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Badrinarayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

Housing Board Entrance, Hosur. Hosur 635 109. [PAN: BWSPS 5229L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Badrinarayanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 03.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

109, Venkatsamy Road, RS Puram, Coimbatore but only a power agent but based on unregistered Power of Attorney issued by Shri P.R. Balakrishnan, the assessee has sold this property. The assessee therefore objected to treatment of income on sale of property as capital gain in his hand. The AO after going through the facts of the case noted that

PRABHA GARG,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD -2(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

house property on 27.02.1991, sold it for Rs.1,78,00,000/- on 10.06.2008. In computing the capital gain, the assessee had deducted Rs.13,00,000/- towards expenses on stamp duty which is not an allowable expenses, as the stamp duty is to borne by the purchaser. Further, the assessee had also claimed indexed cost of improvement at Rs.95,000/- during

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

M/S. RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

house ; or (C) any office appliances or road transport vehicles ; or (D) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year ; (iii) in the case

M/S. SAKTHI FOUNDATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

house ; or (C) any office appliances or road transport vehicles ; or (D) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year ; (iii) in the case

SOUTHER INDIA MILLS ASSOCIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

house ; or (C) any office appliances or road transport vehicles ; or (D) any machinery or plant, the whole of the actual cost of which is allowed as a deduction (whether by way of depreciation or otherwise) in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" of any one previous year ; (iii) in the case