INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.19/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore V. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.149/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Co No.20/Chny/2025, निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Damayanti Ramachandran, Pb No.5303, Gn Mills Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641029 [Pan: Aabhd8298Q] Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-4(3) Coimbatore (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ketan K. Ved, C.A

35%-0.01%(-34.90%) Also a revaluation of firm Texmo Industries was done and the increase in valuation of Rs.712.27 crores was treated as valuation of goodwill. Business Revaluation / valuation of goodwill of Tl as on 31.03.2012 Revaluation report dated.17.12.2012. Business revaluation of TI Book value of TI Difference treated as goodwill Rs.901.85 Crores Rs.189.58 crores Rs.712.27 Crores The Goodwill created

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Property Developers. The assessee firm is also involved in the business of money lending which is carried out in the name & style of M/s Jayapriya Financiers. The assessee also operates a guest house and theatre by the name of M/s Jayapriya Guest House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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]

property at 56 & 56A. Thirumalai Pillai Road, Chennai, which was later returned by Shri. Sampath when the ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 44 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 acquisition did not go through, result in a benefit to Shri. Sampath coming within the purview of Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. 40. As mentioned above, the first question to be answered

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.

section 2(47)(v) in the year under appeal. 5. Reference to Valuation Cell u/s 50C(2) not made: 5.1 Reference to valuation cell was not made by the AC in spite of the request by the Appellant, as provided in Sec. 50C (2) of the l.T. Act., particularly when the market value of the impugned property was found

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

IV. Form No.3CK submitted by the appellant to DSIR along with annexures. V. Auditors certificate dated 15.09.2011 submitted along with Form No.3CK. VI. Form No.3CM issued by the Hon’ble Ministry & Science and Technology granting approval for Research and Development Facility of the appellant for the purpose of Section 35(2AB) from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2016. VII. Form No.3CL submitted

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)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

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)

house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 17 -: remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur and Velacherry

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

Bench: This Tribunal.

35,27,428/-) as returned Add: Interest on borrowed capital Rs. 8,14,484/- disallowed (as in para 13.4) Add: Addition to deemed rental income Rs. 1,68,000/- (as in para 12.5) Add: Disallowance of deduction u/s 24(a) Rs. 25,200/- (as in para 12.6) Add: Further estimated addition in respect Rs. Of Nanganallur and Velacherry Properties towards

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

35,391/- is hereby disallowed. (Disallowance: Rs.5,59,00,617/-)” 4. Aggrieved by an assessment order dated 17.11.2017 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 92CA(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A) who was pleased to allow appeal of the assessee by following decision of Chennai-tribunal in assessee

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

housing, factory and corporate office thereby virtually preventing all from ingress and egress. In the meantime the secured creditor – Bank of Baroda, which had earlier advanced loan against the security of all the assets, including Stock-in-Trade, had moved petition before DRT (Debts Recovery Tribunal) and also under SARFAESI Act (The 4 - - ITA 1216 & 2106/13 Securitization and Reconstruction