ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1785, 1796 & 1828/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11, 2011-12 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Green House Promoters Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd, Company Circle Ii(1) No.4,Rama Rao Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan Aaccg 2333B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Private Limited -ITA No.1097(Mad.)/2011 dated 21.03.2103, purchase cost of the lands in a real estate business can be treated as exempted under the Rule 6DD and hence cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the above case, ld. Commissioner of Income

DURAISAMY SENTHIL KUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.552/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Duraisamy Senthil Kumar Vs The Income Tax Officer, 16, Muthurangam Street, Erode. Erode-638 001. Pan: Alwps 8708C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

253/-. The assessee has computed loss from house property and carried forward loss to subsequent assessment years as per return of income filed for impugned assessment year. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee has not taken benefit of set off of brought forward losses under the head ‘income from house property’ against income from house property

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

properties , fresh sanction plans issued by local municipal authorities etc. to substantiate that the loans were granted/utilised for the purposes of construction of additional floors etc to the borrowers. The matter is remitted back to AO and the assessee is directed to produce all details before the AO. The AO shall in remand proceedings after considering the submissions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

section 46A of the act. Upon hearing the rival parties in the light of material available on records, we are of the view that there do not exists any merit in the arguments of the Revenue. The need for admission for additional evidences, inter-alia, arises only in situations when the Ld. AO asks for certain details and the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

section 46A of the act. Upon hearing the rival parties in the light of material available on records, we are of the view that there do not exists any merit in the arguments of the Revenue. The need for admission for additional evidences, inter-alia, arises only in situations when the Ld. AO asks for certain details and the same

GOPALSAMY,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A)-18, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

The appeals stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1384/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1385/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1386/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Gopalsamy Vs. Acit No.3B, 3Rd Floor New No.27 Dc/Ac Central Cir 1(2) East Street, Krishna Apartments, Chennai Raghava Reddy Colony, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. [Pan: Bjtpg 4193H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) arises out of a common order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [‘CIT(A)’ in short] for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2019-20. Facts as well as issues are substantially the same. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

253(5) of the 1961 Act and thus, keeping in view interest of substantial justice, we condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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...

3 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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...

3 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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...

3 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their

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...

3 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2008 - 9 months weight of the Brand value as on 31.12.2009 = 9/12 x 3857 millions + 9/12 x 370 millions = USD 3740 millions. 8.38% x USD 3740 millions = USD 313.41 millions = INR 1493,12,19,897. If the Sales of HMIL and HMC are considered to be the respective drivers of their