ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,MADURAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

ACIT, MADURAI vs. J.K.FENNER (INDIA) LTD., MADURAI

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 32(2) by the Finance Act, 1996 as retrospective in effect so as to preclude the assessee’s claim for adjustment of unaccumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as on 01.04.1997 from earlier years against Income from House Property

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

housing project. In this regard, clauses 6(c) and 9 of MOA elaborate the nature of developmental works to be carried out by the developer simultaneously on execution of JDA. The relevant clauses are reproduced as under: “6(c) The Second Party after satisfying themselves that the title of the Owners is clear and marketable, shall arrange to clear

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

32. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the re- insurance premium under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(Appeals) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee to 15% without any reason. 33. We have carefully gone through the judgment