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.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

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.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

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.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ESKAY DESIGNS, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 247/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Eskay Designs, No. 25, 1St Street, Cenotaph Road, Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Vs. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaafe1480C] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 31.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The First Issue Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Assess The Rental Income Received By The Assessee On Sub-Letting Of Its Leased Out Properties Under The Head “Income From House Property” & The Second Issue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing To Allow The Expenses If They Are Paid As On 2

house property. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” The issue involved in the present appeal is similar to that of the issue dealt with in earlier assessment years. The ld. DR could not controvert the above findings of the Tribunal having modified or reversed

R.UPENDRAN (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 54 takes into account all independent residential unit and complete house. Independent residential units, particularly in these days when multi-storeyed flats are becoming the order of the day. In this case, if the assessee invested the capital gains in the construction of further floor in the existing building and even if it was commenced before the sale

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. HARIPRIAY JAGDISH, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 54 of the I.T Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee sold one property on 09.09.2011 for a consideration of `11,88,000/- which was purchased by her on 20.01.2006, and the assessee sold another property on 31.12.2011 for a consideration of `48,00,000/- which was gifted to her by her husband

PON MANIBASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. CHE-W-(105)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2534/Chny/2024 िनधा(रण वष(/Assessment Year: 2020-21

house property loss amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-. Pon Manibaskaran :: 3 :: 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), before whom assessee brought to his notice that he was not given proper opportunity by the AO during the assessment proceedings. In this regard, the assessee also brought to his notice certain incidents like the AO issued inter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

216 CTR 195 (SC) and the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT vs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 661.\n7.5.20 I now see whether the premium transaction could fall under any other specific section. The assessee argued that as per RBI Master Circular, the investment should be equal to or higher than DCF value and that the investment obtained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

216 CTR\n195 (SC) and the jurisdictional Madras High Court in CIT\nvs Electro Polychem Ltd [2007] 294 ITR 661.\n7.5.20 I now see whether the premium transaction could\nfall under any other specific section. The assessee argued\nthat as per RBI Master Circular, the investment should be\nequal to or higher than DCF value and that the investment\nobtained

BALASUNDARAM MAHALAKSHMI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-4,, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1411/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ms. Balasundaram Mahalakshmi Dcit बनाम/ 216, Atd Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiopm-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

216, ATD Road, Race Course, Non-Corporate Circle-4 Vs. Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AIOPM-6371-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)- Ld.AR " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement

PALANISAMY DEVI ,ERODE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

house property, salary as a working-partner from firm and interest income. Apart from the above, assessee had also shown agricultural income of Rs.20,35,953/-. The AO after scrutiny framed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act, wherein, he made an addition of Rs.16,57,216/- which amount was estimated by the AO as agricultural expenses

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the\nassessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business\nincome and consequently the claim of exemption

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house property'\nand thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-.\nConsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by\nthe AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the\nassessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business\nincome and consequently the claim of exemption

A.G.T. ELECTRONICS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ADIT, CPC, , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

216/-, however, after separating the Service Tax, CGST, SGST, IGST, the sales of service worked out at Rs.82,05,784/-. He furthermore contended that the turnover does not include Service Tax, CGST, SGST, IGST, hence CPC, Bengaluru cannot declare the return invalid for the reason that the books of accounts have not been audited. He relied upon the various orders

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED,HOSUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - LTU 2 (IC), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A. JAGADEESWARI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.245/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) C.O. No. 30/Mds/2017 (In I.T.A. No.245/Mds/2017) Smt. A. Jagadeeswari, Vs The Income Tax Officer, New No.40, Flat No.G-2. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1)(I/C) Jagannathapuram, Iii Street, Chennai – 34. Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Adhpj4253E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : 20.09.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Property Developers Pvt Ltd 2015- TIOL-720-HC- MAD-IT which involves a similar situation as that of the appellant wherein it has been held that there was a single housing project with different blocks and hence the deduction u/s.80-IB(10) could not be denied. 43. Reliance is placed on the orders of the Hon'ble Madras High Court

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