DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

section. A perusal of the various expenses claimed by the appellant indicates that they relate to the business of running a mall, hotel, bar and events. While some expenses are administrative in nature, the other expenses pertain to advertising, business promotion and maintenance of the business premises. Taking into account the entire scenario the following expenses are to be treated

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

section. A perusal of the various expenses claimed by the appellant indicates that they relate to the business of running a mall, hotel, bar and events. While some expenses are administrative in nature, the other expenses pertain to advertising, business promotion and maintenance of the business premises. Taking into account the entire scenario the following expenses are to be treated

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

section. A perusal of the various expenses claimed by the appellant indicates that they relate to the business of running a mall, hotel, bar and events. While some expenses are administrative in nature, the other expenses pertain to advertising, business promotion and maintenance of the business premises. Taking into account the entire scenario the following expenses are to be treated

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]

138, Chamiers Road, Chennai, this could not be accepted since the land was finally acquired by GIE. Thus, there was a violation of the nature specified u/s. 13(1) (c) of the Act. (vi) Loans aggregating to "1,00,00,000/- was raised on the security of fixed deposits, and this was given to Shri. Sampath, one of the trustees

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]

138, Chamiers Road, Chennai, this could not be accepted since the land was finally acquired by GIE. Thus, there was a violation of the nature specified u/s. 13(1) (c) of the Act. (vi) Loans aggregating to "1,00,00,000/- was raised on the security of fixed deposits, and this was given to Shri. Sampath, one of the trustees

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]

138, Chamiers Road, Chennai, this could not be accepted since the land was finally acquired by GIE. Thus, there was a violation of the nature specified u/s. 13(1) (c) of the Act. (vi) Loans aggregating to "1,00,00,000/- was raised on the security of fixed deposits, and this was given to Shri. Sampath, one of the trustees

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]

138, Chamiers Road, Chennai, this could not be accepted since the land was finally acquired by GIE. Thus, there was a violation of the nature specified u/s. 13(1) (c) of the Act. (vi) Loans aggregating to "1,00,00,000/- was raised on the security of fixed deposits, and this was given to Shri. Sampath, one of the trustees

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

138 (Mum.), is aptly apply here, which has been rightly considered by the ld.CIT(A) while deciding the disputed issue of the assessee, wherein the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT has held that: “since no benefit or perquisite arose to partners in course of business carried on, section 28(iv) could not be applied to bring sum in question

SIRISH KUMAR BAFNA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1034/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Sirish Kumar Bafna, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 6, Mulla Lane, Sowcarpet, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Business Circle Xii, [Pan: Aaepb1644B] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Murali Mohan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 22.02.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Being The Difference Arrived At In Interest Received As Per Form No. 26As & Interest Disclosed In The Return In The Computation Of Taxable Total Income.

section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response thereto, the AR of the assessee filed books of account and furnished all details. 2.1 The assessee has been deriving income from salary, house property, share of profit from other firm in the capacity as partner and income from other sources. As per AIR information

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

Properties, Ashwin Dulabhai Pate, Landmark Housing Projects Chennai Private Limited, Rainbow Foundations Limited etc. The agreement for sale and the cancellation deed with Janpath Marketing Private Limited were communicated on the same day by Shri Neelakantan CA, Ganesh Plantation Limited, Vinat Complex Private Limited and Mahavir Complex (Thalej) Limited were having the same address and the fund was directly transferred

VINODHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

138 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by the affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that impugned order was sent on email id of Chartered Accountant (CA). The office of CA failed to take notice of the same and also failed

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

C.SELVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 957/Chny/2017 & 955/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri C. Selvaraj, The Assistant Commissioner Of 42, Sriram Avenue, Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Pappanaickenpalayam, Corporate Range – 1, Coimbatore 641 037. Chennai. [Pan:Anbps6371C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Both Dated 30.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07 Challenging Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer In Passing Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

Housing Corporation filed his return of income on 13.07.2006 for the assessment year 2006-07 admitting total income of ₹.65,440/-. After following due process, the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26.12.2008 after making addition of ₹.10,00,000/- towards unexplained income. 3. Subsequently, a survey under section 133A

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

property matter as claimed by the\nassessee is not acceptable in the eyes of law. We find that the reconstitution of\npartnership deed has been made by altering the share of profit among the partners\nbased on the family arrangement, wherein all the partners are of one family. Hence,\nwe find that, this agreement is in substance a family arrangement