MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Rs. 15,79,800/- AABHM8414M- MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY , CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.2,03,41,810/- Rs.1,30,18,054/- Rs.1,87,62,010/- Rs.57,43,956/- Page 39 of 94 to be considered as rental advance/deposit Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- The Id.AR submitted that upon verification of records

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

property. Aggrieved by the addition made, the assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) and raised grounds on disallowance of development expenditures. During the first appellate proceedings the assessee made submission with respect to disallowances made towards development expenditure incurred by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT(A), without considering the issue under consideration i.e., disallowance of expenditure, enhanced the income

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 991, 992 & 993/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dcit, Vs. Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Menakuru Sukumar Reddy, Vs. 8-2-696-697, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034. [Pan: Aabhm-8414-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.03.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : :-2-:

House Property' Rs.1,30,18,054/- Amount received from M/s Janakiram Co-owners Rs.1,87,62,010/- to be considered as rental advance/deposit Rs.57,43,956/- Balance amount not explained to be considered as unexplained credits Rs. 15,79,800/- Page 39 of 94 AABHM8414M-MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY Α.Υ. 2015-16 ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074784329(1) The Id.AR submitted that upon verification

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

3) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act') for the AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15.\n2. It is noted that, in all these appeals, the common grievance of the\nassessee relates to the Ld. CIT(A)'s action of denying the benefit of\ndeduction claimed u/s 80-IAB of the Act. Both the parties they agreed

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

House,, 1st Street, Company Circle I(3) 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 001. [PAN AAACC 1226H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department by : Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT. Assessee by : Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21-03-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-04-2016 आदेश

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

House,, 1st Street, Company Circle I(3) 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 001. [PAN AAACC 1226H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department by : Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT. Assessee by : Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21-03-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28-04-2016 आदेश

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property of Rs.7,000/– and income from other sources of Rs.14,826/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of the following issues: - i. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income ii. Share capital/capital 6. Consequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2018, followed by multiple notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. 7. During

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 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

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 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

TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

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

124 ITD 460 . The relevant portion is extracted as under : “ The facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in textiles, readymade garments and dress materials. There was a survey in the premises of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on November 6, 2002. During the course of survey some discrepancies were found

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

3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER: The Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its rights under this Lease Deed in favour of any person, provided all the dues payable by the LESSEE to the LESSOR are fully paid up and subject to the LESSEE not being guilty of breach of or non-observance of any of the terms and conditions of this Lease

SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 866/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sakthi Sugars Limited, 180, Race Course Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Corporate Circle – 1, Coimbatore Pan: Aadcs0651B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 1107/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs M/S. Sakthi Sugars Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 180, Race Course Road, Corporate Circle – 1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore Pan: Aadcs0651B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Jayanthi Krishnan, Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit : 25.04.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

3(ii) : Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules of Rs.53,499/- :- From the facts of the case, it appears that the Ld. Revenue Authorities had invoked the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules, because the assessee had made investment for earning exempt income and the expenditure relating to such investment was not disallowed

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SAKTHI SUGARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 866/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sakthi Sugars Limited, 180, Race Course Road, Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 018. Corporate Circle – 1, Coimbatore Pan: Aadcs0651B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 1107/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Vs M/S. Sakthi Sugars Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 180, Race Course Road, Corporate Circle – 1, Coimbatore – 641 018. Coimbatore Pan: Aadcs0651B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Jayanthi Krishnan, Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit : 25.04.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

3(ii) : Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules of Rs.53,499/- :- From the facts of the case, it appears that the Ld. Revenue Authorities had invoked the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules, because the assessee had made investment for earning exempt income and the expenditure relating to such investment was not disallowed