NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

house, I remembered the closed cover and handed over the same to him. 6. That I then understood that the cover contained the order of the CIT(A)-16, Chennai, dated 28.02.2022 and that a delay in filing an appeal against the said order had occurred. 7. That I submit that only due to genuine inadvertence, I forgot to inform

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

house property interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense. Le, book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

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

Property only with the consent of the LESSEE. 5.11 From the discussions made above, it can be conclusively proved that, the assessee was engaged in sale of residential flats and profit so earned from such transactions have been claimed as deduction u/s.80IAB. The cost of construction including the land cost, infrastructure cost and construction cost on the whole has been

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

Property only with the consent\nof the LESSEE.\n5.11 From the discussions made above, it can be conclusively proved\nthat, the assessee was engaged in sale of residential flats and profit so\nearned from such transactions have been claimed as deduction\nu/s.80IAB. The cost of construction including the land cost,\ninfrastructure cost and construction cost on the whole has been

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

Property only with the consent\nof the LESSEE.\n5.11 From the discussions made above, it can be conclusively proved\nthat, the assessee was engaged in sale of residential flats and profit so\nearned from such transactions have been claimed as deduction\nu/s.80IAB. The cost of construction including the land cost,\ninfrastructure cost and construction cost on the whole has been

M/S. TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPOR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1181/Chny/2008 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) M/S. Tamilnadu Industrial Vs The Acit, Development Corporation Limited, Company Circle – Iii(1), 19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Chennai – 34. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaact3409P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit

Section 56(2)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, it had held that assessee would be entitled to set-off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against the said dividend income. 7. The Ld.AR also placed his reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case reported in 124

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

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

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

124-2-560 including branch canal and distributaries in Erode and Karur Districts 5. Contractee - PWD WRD. Vellar Basin Circle, Cuddalore Nature of work - Rehabilitation of Non System Tank and its supply channels from yal tank to pinnalvadi tank gadilam sub basin in sankarapuram, tirukoilur and ulundurpet taluk of villupuram district (package no. 01) 6. Contractee - PWD, WRD, Special Project

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

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

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

124-2-560 including branch canal and distributaries in Erode and Karur Districts 5. Contractee - PWD WRD. Vellar Basin Circle, Cuddalore Nature of work - Rehabilitation of Non System Tank and its supply channels from yal tank to pinnalvadi tank gadilam sub basin in sankarapuram, tirukoilur and ulundurpet taluk of villupuram district (package no. 01) 6. Contractee - PWD, WRD, Special Project

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. HYUNDAI MOTOR 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...

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” but even under this, what appears to be, extended definition, the accretion to the value of intangibles is not covered. As we say, we must reiterate that so far as use of brand name under the technology agreement is concerned

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...

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” but even under this, what appears to be, extended definition, the accretion to the value of intangibles is not covered. As we say, we must reiterate that so far as use of brand name under the technology agreement is concerned

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...

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” but even under this, what appears to be, extended definition, the accretion to the value of intangibles is not covered. As we say, we must reiterate that so far as use of brand name under the technology agreement is concerned

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...

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” but even under this, what appears to be, extended definition, the accretion to the value of intangibles is not covered. As we say, we must reiterate that so far as use of brand name under the technology agreement is concerned

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...

property right, exterior design or practical and new design or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” but even under this, what appears to be, extended definition, the accretion to the value of intangibles is not covered. As we say, we must reiterate that so far as use of brand name under the technology agreement is concerned

DCIT , COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED , ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

124-2-560\nincluding branch canal and distributaries in Erode and Karur Districts\n5. Contractee - PWD WRD. Vellar Basin Circle, Cuddalore\nNature of work - Rehabilitation of Non System Tank and its supply\nchannels from yal tank to pinnalvadi tank gadilam sub basin in\nsankarapuram, tirukoilur and ulundurpet taluk of villupuram district\n(package no. 01)\n6. Contractee - PWD, WRD, Special

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

124-2-560\nincluding branch canal and distributaries in Erode and Karur Districts\n5. Contractee - PWD WRD. Vellar Basin Circle, Cuddalore\nNature of work - Rehabilitation of Non System Tank and its supply\nchannels from yal tank to pinnalvadi tank gadilam sub basin in\nsankarapuram, tirukoilur and ulundurpet taluk of villupuram district\n(package no. 01)\n6. Contractee - PWD, WRD, Special

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKILLIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

2(12A) and section 44AA. The judicial analysis of books of account and the dictum given by the Bombay High Court in case of Sheraton Apparels v. ACIT [2002] (256 ITR 20) (Bom.), leaves no room for any possible doubt that credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called