SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, I floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [PAN AAGTS 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT. : 22-06-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

House, T Chowdaiah Road, Chennai-600034. Sadashivanagr, Bangalore-560080 PAN: AAWCS7390C Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Mrs. S. Ananthan, CA (virtually) Revenue / Respondent by : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by different assessees and the revenue are against the separate orders

SAMYUKTA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2834, 2835, 2836 & 2837/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

166 ITD 196 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for denying the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The CIT(A) also denied the claim of exemption in regard to corpus donation. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee before us, first of all stated that the issue is covered by the decision

SAMYUKTA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2834, 2835, 2836 & 2837/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

166 ITD 196 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for denying the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The CIT(A) also denied the claim of exemption in regard to corpus donation. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee before us, first of all stated that the issue is covered by the decision

SAMYUKTA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2834, 2835, 2836 & 2837/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

166 ITD 196 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for denying the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The CIT(A) also denied the claim of exemption in regard to corpus donation. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee before us, first of all stated that the issue is covered by the decision

SAMYUKTA GOWDA SARASWATHA SABHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:2834, 2835, 2836 & 2837/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

166 ITD 196 confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for denying the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The CIT(A) also denied the claim of exemption in regard to corpus donation. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee before us, first of all stated that the issue is covered by the decision

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

house property being residential accommodation the tenant had not deducted TDS on rent paid by them. If any communication had bought to my notice earlier i would have taken necessary steps to submit at that relevant point of time. 2. Non-disclosure of loan given in the Income Tax Return (ITR) In ITR-3 of AY 2018-19 the disclosure

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), CHENNAI vs. ARVIND SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 1765/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Mr. Arvind Srinivasan Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), 61, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 004. Pan: Adcpa0371R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

house property, capital gains and business of brokerage and commission. In the profit and loss account a number of expenses have been debited for which he was requested to furnish the evidences vide questionnaire dated 11.01.2013, but no evidences whatsoever have been furnished. Only the ledger accounts were furnished. Hence, 50% of the expenses on electricity charges

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY, CHENNAI

166,41,22,057/-\nAggrieved by the above Assessment order u/s.143(3) rw.s.147 of the Act dated\n31.03.2022, the assessee filed an appeal before Id.CIT(A) dt.28.04.2022. The\nId.CIT(A) passed an order u/s.250 of the Act on 20.03.2025 by sustaining the\nbelow mentioned additions to total Income:\n1) Total Credits in Kotak Mahindra Bank\nA/c No 737010042783\nRs.8

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

166 (SC), SA Builders Ltd. v. CIT ( 288 ITR 1(SC) ), Hero Cylces Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT (379 ITR 347)(SC) etc. 7.12 The A.O should have examined the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister-concern, and 22 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 what the sister-concern did with this money, in order

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

property held under trust\" includes a business undertaking\nso held. Therefore, profits derived from a business undertaking held under\ntrust also qualify for the exemption, subject to fulfilment of other\nconditions. Section 11(4A) thereafter stipulates two conditions for the\nclaim of exemption of business income u/s 11(1); one being that the\nbusiness is incidental to the attainment

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36 of\nIncome Tax Act, 1961,\n“if any interest paid for the business purpose, the same has to\nbe allowed as business expenditure " as held in the cases of -\nThe DCIT, Cir. 1(1(1), Ahmedabad v. Applitech Solution Ltd. (/TAT\nAhmedabad B Bench) in ITA no.248/4hd/2020 pronounced on\n19/05/2023; and Vodafone India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner