JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

properties. 2.6)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, one of the conditions for allowing deduction u/s 54F is that the assessee should not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer for claiming the exemption under the said condition. In the assessee’s case, the assessee was owning more than one residential house and therefore

JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

properties. 2.6)The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that, one of the conditions for allowing deduction u/s 54F is that the assessee should not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer for claiming the exemption under the said condition. In the assessee’s case, the assessee was owning more than one residential house and therefore

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

house at Rs.1.20 lakhs and divided among himself and his wife and declared Rs.60,000/- from this property and none of the authorities below have carried out this exercise of computing the correct market value, we feel that on estimate deemed rental income cannot be added u/s.24 of the Act. Hence, we delete the addition and allow this issue

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

housing facilities for the\nmanagement, office staff and the workers of the SEZ units. Having taken\nnote of these legal provisions and rules, the AO observed that the\nassessee had acted in complete violation thereof and therefore the\nassessee was ineligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IAB of the Act. The AO\nparticularly noted that, the payment made

EXPRESS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Chny/2018 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Express Infrastructure (P) Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of No. 2, Express Estates, Vs. Income Tax, Club House Road, Mount Road, Company Circle 2-(1), Chennai-600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aabce-5521-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2023 : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

House Property” and accordingly disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19-01- 2016 directed the Ld. AO to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 24b of the Act subject to verification by the Ld. AO that the impugned

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

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

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 for the\nmanagement, office staff and the workers of the SEZ units. Having taken\nnote of these legal provisions and rules, the AO observed that the\nassessee had acted in complete violation thereof and therefore the\nassessee was ineligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IAB of the Act. The AO\nparticularly noted that, the payment made

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 for the management, office staff and the workers of the SEZ units. Having taken note of these legal provisions and rules, the AO observed that the assessee had acted in complete violation thereof and therefore the ITA No.870/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13 & ITA Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd. :: 5 :: assessee

SAN TEX INC.,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

KM KNIT WEAR,TIRUPUR vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

VICTUS DYEINGS ,TIRUPUR vs. ACIT , CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

GATES WEARS,TIRUPPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 3326/Chny/2019, 326/Chny/2024 &\n768/Chny/2022 are dismissed; ITA No

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we\nrefer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on\nsale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion,\nis not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub-\nclause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub- clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

house property and profits and gains of profession. If we refer to sub-clause (iiia) of section 28 of the Act, which explains profits on sale of a license granted under the Import (Control) order, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, sub- clause (iiib) of section 28 of the Act provides