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

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

house out of the sale proceeds(Capital Gains) obtained by him due to transfer of his property. Secondly, the Authorized Representative submits that Section 54F does not postulate the subsequent user of the asset as a criterion for determination of allowance, i.e. it does not want such a residential property must be used only and solely for the residential purpose

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.GIMPEX LIMITED , CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

M/S GIMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

K MOHAN RAJ,SALEM vs. ITO 1/ WARD 1-1, KRISHNAGIRI

Accordingly, W.P.Nos.27998 and 28000 of 2021 and W.P.(MD) No.11312 of 2021 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1424/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Mr. K. Mohan Raj, The Ito, D.No.61/10, Ward-1(1), Travellers Bungalow Road, Krn Complex East, Old Pet, K. Theatre Road, Krishnagiri-635 001. Krishnagiri-1. [Pan: Arzpm 1267 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282 A it has to be signed by that authority and to be issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with procedure prescribed. 19. The communication in electronic form has been prescribed in Rule 127 A of the Rules 1962 which provides a procedure for issuance of every notice or other document

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282, 283, 284, 285 and 286/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. M/s. AVM Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN AAATA 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282, 283, 284, 285 and 286/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. M/s. AVM Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN AAATA 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282, 283, 284, 285 and 286/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. M/s. AVM Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN AAATA 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282, 283, 284, 285 and 286/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. M/s. AVM Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN AAATA 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

282, 283, 284, 285 and 286/CHNY/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 and 2014-15. M/s. AVM Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [PAN AAATA 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE 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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GREEN HOUSE PROMOTERS PRIVATE 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

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

SUNITHA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT -1, COIM,BATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

house property being residential accommodation the tenant had not deducted TDS on rent paid by them. If any communication had bought to my notice earlier i would have taken necessary steps to submit at that relevant point of time. 2. Non-disclosure of loan given in the Income Tax Return (ITR) In ITR-3 of AY 2018-19 the disclosure

A.M.SUBRAMANIAN,MADURAI vs. DCIT, MADURAI

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

282 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (5) N. Revathi V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 30 (Hyderabad – Trib.) He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO by denying the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act may be deleted. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently argued in support of the order of the Ld.AO and prayed for sustaining

ACIT, MADURAI vs. A.M.SUBRAMANIAN, MADURAI

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

282 (Hyderabad – Trib.) (5) N. Revathi V. ITO in [2014] 45 taxmann.com 30 (Hyderabad – Trib.) He therefore pleaded that the addition made by the Ld.AO by denying the benefit of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act may be deleted. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently argued in support of the order of the Ld.AO and prayed for sustaining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

property, which were not factually correct. ::27 :: 22. Before us, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has objected to the validity of the retraction furnished by Shri R. Sabapathy. According to us, such objection is not tenable on two fronts. The first being that, the original statement had been shown to be given on mistaken fact and also the subsequent