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

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

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. It is observed that reopening of the concluded assessment was done by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act within four years from end of assessment year and hence proviso to Section

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

1) of the 1961 Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. It is observed that reopening of the concluded assessment was done by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act within four years from end of assessment year and hence proviso to Section

N RAMASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house by means of perpetual lease exceeding twelve years, it has to be construed as acquisition of property / purchase of property within the meaning of Section 54F of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 54F of the Act. Hence, this Tribunal is unable to uphold the order of the Principal Commissioner passed under Section 263

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

1) of the Act: Income from House property inadvertently not reduced from “business income” and not disclosed under the head “income from house property” :-5-: ITA. Nos:1570/Chny/2025 8. The AO has passed an order u/s.154 of the Act dated 02.06.2022 by observing that the mistake above is apparent from record and hence rectified the same. According to the ld.PCIT

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property was utilized for residential purpose. On being satisfied, the Assessing Officer has extended the benefit of deduction under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer is not expected to write a judgment and his order should reveal application of mind, which in our opinion is writ large on the face of the order. Therefore, we do not approve

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.2. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the order of the AO is not erroneous and is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Your appellants therefore submit that the order of the Pr. CIT be quashed. 1.3. The learned Pr. CIT failed to appreciate the fact

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Housing Loan of Rs.2,10,00,000/- from Karur Vysya Bank Ltd for purchasing the flat. Copy of loan sanction letter is enclosed herewith. Balance cost of the property amounting to Rs. 1,72,00,000/- was paid by me from out of my own source from the personal gift of Rs. 1,98,00,000/- received from my father

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue