DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

211/- and treated 9 I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/25 the on-money received amounting to ₹.3,52,34,234/- on the joint property and ₹.5,62,65,625/- on the individual property as income from other sources. On perusal of para 6.5.7 of the impugned order, we note that the assessee has clarified that the deduction for the properties were claimed under

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

INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 3497/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. India Metal One Steel Plate The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Processing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Tax, Prestige Palladium Bayan, Corporate Circle – 2(2), 6Th Floor, Door No. 129 To 140 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aacci 5959F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (%&यथ'/Respondent)

house property. Likewise, a company may have income from other sources. It may buy shares and get dividends. Such dividends will be taxable under section 56 of the Act. The company may also, as in this case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(1), CHENNAI vs. A.M.K.SHAHUL HAMEED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1253/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri A.M.K. Shahul Hameed, Non Corporate Ward 2(1), Vs. Old No. 5, New No. 9, Rangan Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aabph6895F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 11.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 01.06.2013 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.10,82,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Following Due Process, The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 2

house would include multiple flats/residential units. In the decision in Dr. Smt. P. K. Vasanthi Rangarajan v. CIT (23 taxmann.com 299/209 Taxman 628) this Court, while dealing with the benefit of exemption under Section 54F, followed the above-said decision of this Court in T.C.(A)No.656 of 2005 and granted the benefit to the assessee under section

ACIT, NCC - -9(1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI BIJI KURIEN,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 06/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & C.O. No. 12/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No. 06/Chny/2020] The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Biji Kurien, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Vs. A 025, Commanders Court, Room No. 211, 2Nd Floor, Wanaparthy Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Addpk6148H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.V. Radhakrishna, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

211, 2nd Floor, Wanaparthy Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 008. Chennai 600 006. [PAN:ADDPK6148H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri K.V. Radhakrishna, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश

S.SAILAKSHMI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1367/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011. S. Sailakshmi, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Palani Towers, Income Tax, No.65, Venkatnarayana Road, Non Corporate Circle 2, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaops 9257P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

211 Thus, as per assessee (i) the property was sold at an agreed price of "25,07,000/-, (ii) the agreement was reached as early as previous year relevant to the assessment year 2000-01 and possession handed :- 6 -: over in financial year 2006-07. (iii) the entire sale proceeds were invested in the construction of another residential property within

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

house property, the assessee is allowed deduction under section 24 of the Act on account of interest paid on the borrowed funds utilised for acquiring the immovable property. Similarly, when the income is to be computed under the head "Profits and gains from business or profession", the deduction account of interest on borrowed fund is provided under section

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

property and registered in the name M/s.Ravi Construction company in the year 1968 to 1970 and the assessee inherited the same upon the demise of the father in the year 2001. The sale took place through registered sale documents numbering six and all registered on 7-3-2017. The value of land and building sold by the assessee

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI vs. ANJLALI FOUNDATIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Property Act, by virtue of the development agreement and the agreement to sell, the assessee had, for the purpose of Income Tax, become the owner of the land. The Tribunal, accordingly, allowed the assessee's appeal directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under Section 80IB(10). On Revenue’s appeal, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has noted

THE INDIA CEMENTS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

House Property, Profits and Gains of business or profession, capital gains or income from other sources. In other words, once an item has been found to be covered within the meaning of 'income', the same shall have necessarily to be classified in distinct heads of income and computations of tax would be made accordingly. Since the definition of income

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

housing project in view of the major work of demolition of the existing structure newly built by the previous order for hotel business by the appellant. Hence, it was submitted that there was nothing absolutely wrong in treating the property as inventory in the compilation of financial statements. It was also stated that the inventory in the business/holding