THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act\nat para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed\ndividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of\nRs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned\norder

SOPHIA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD -6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.322/Chny/2019 & 3383/Chnyh/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12 M/S. Sophia Automotive Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, No. 2F(Np), Sidco Industrial Vs. Corporate Ward 6(3), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaics6884P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 19.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal In I.T.A. No. 322/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Appeal Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Dismissed On The Ground That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 11.03.2016, which is well within four years of time limit provided in the statute. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits. 7. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of 50% disallowance of depreciation. The assessee has claimed

SOPHIA AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD -6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.322/Chny/2019 & 3383/Chnyh/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2011-12 M/S. Sophia Automotive Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, No. 2F(Np), Sidco Industrial Vs. Corporate Ward 6(3), Estate, Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. Chennai 34. [Pan:Aaics6884P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 30.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Order Dated 19.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When The Appeal In I.T.A. No. 322/Chny/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Appeal Filed Before The Ld. Cit(A) Was Dismissed On The Ground That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The 2

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 11.03.2016, which is well within four years of time limit provided in the statute. Accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of merits. 7. The next ground raised in the appeal of the assessee relates to confirmation of 50% disallowance of depreciation. The assessee has claimed

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

DHANRAJ KOCHAR HUF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dhanraj Kochar Huf, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 33, Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax, Chennai 600 079. Central Circle – Ii(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaahd2785H] (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 : 18.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. We Find That This Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of One Day. The Assessee Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Petition, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

house as per the requirement of the HUF will not alter the position and interpretation of provisions under section 54 of the Act. 9. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the facts remain admitted that the assessee had 6 I.T.A. No.1926/Chny/24 two properties one is residential property at Poe’s Garden

JOTHI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act at para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of Rs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned order

P. SUBRAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CRICLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

section 50C of the Act and brought to tax, of Rs.1,19,98,298/- as long term capital gain and Rs.5,16,528/- as short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the ld.CIT(A)- NFAC for all the three issues

GOVIND PILLAI YUVARAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

173 Taxman 311 (Bom). Further considering the factual aspects and the provisions of law, the ld. Assessing Officer based on the equiry and information submitted by the assessee is of the opinion that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/sec. 54F of the Act as the assessee owns more than one residential house on the date of sale

ITO, CHENNAI vs. MAHESHWARI YUVARAJ, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

173 Taxman 311 (Bom). Further considering the factual aspects and the provisions of law, the ld. Assessing Officer based on the equiry and information submitted by the assessee is of the opinion that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/sec. 54F of the Act as the assessee owns more than one residential house on the date of sale

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

property prior to due date under section 139(4). Contention of Revenue that deposit in Capital Gain Scheme should have been made prior to due date under section 139(1) is untenable (259 CTR 388 P&H) - Copy enclosed. (b) Investment under section 54 B can be made within the period prescribed by Section

VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

property on 13.07.2011 for Rs.1,18,99,200/- in which the share of the appellant was 50%. In AY 2012-13, the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs.48,47,406/-, however the same was disallowed during scrutiny assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13. Identical disallowance was also made in the case of appellant's husband

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

housing and therefore it should be regarded as building used for business purposes. The AO following the orders passed by his predecessors held that, the depreciation rate allowable on residential buildings as per the Income-tax Rules was 5% and not 10% and that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had also held that

M/S COUNCIL FOR LEATHER EXPORTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI CIRCLECHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 948/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Council For Leather V. Income Tax (Exemption), Exports, Chennai Circle, No.1, Sivaganga Road, Chennai-34. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacc-4697-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Krishnan Ramaswamy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

house property interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense. i.e.. 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

ITO, CHENNAI vs. ABDUL HAMEED KHAN MOHAMMED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

173 Taxman 311) wherein it was held that in order to qualify for exemption under section 54F, it is necessary and obligatory to have investment made in residential house in the name of assessee only and not in the name of any other person. The assessee is attempting to circumvent the decision by making the investment in his name