DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)‘), Chennai, both dated 12.02.2025, for the Assessment Years (hereinafter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appeals preferred by the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee are against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)‘), Chennai, both dated 12.02.2025, for the Assessment Years (hereinafter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43 & 44/Chny/2025

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the action of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter ‘AO’) framing assessment for Assessment Year (hereinafter ‘AY’) 2014-15 u/s.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) by order dated 05.01.2024 pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel-2 (hereinafter ‘DRP’), Bangalore

MADHURIKA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Madhurika Educational & Asst. Director Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, Vs. (Exemptions)-Iv, No.11, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-34 Chennai-600010. [Pan: Aaatm8627M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059541811(1) Dated 10.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2010- 11. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

1)(c) and (d) are evidenced, the ineligibility to claim exemption under section 11 becomes operative. Consequently, in view of overriding nature of provisions of section 13 the excess income, would have to be computed as per the regular provisions of the act and brought under tax. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities in respect of impugned additions

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Chennai, dated 30.09.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14. :-2-: ITA. No:196/Chny/2022 2. At the outset, we find that there is delay of 832 days in filing of appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

d the cost of the new asset is to be charged under Section 45 as the income of the previous year. charged under Section 45 as the income of the previous year. (iii)If the amount of the capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of (iii)If the amount of the capital gain is equal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns