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

iv) Home Equity Loans: These are loan against mortgage of immovable residential properties.” 6.3 The A.O. further observed from the website of the assessee company that the assessee is giving loans for purchase or construction of commercial properties, plot loans for commercial properties and prosperity loans (loans against mortgage of immovable property for such purposes as may be desired

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

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

iv) It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court has dealt with this specific issue, while dealing with the case of M/s.Home Finders Housing Ltd. in Writ Petition No.1019 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.1001 and 6076 of 2017, while examining into the adherence of the AO to legal obligations and the Court directions while

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

houses and the total consideration received during F.Y. 2013-14 is Rs.3,46,12,700/-. And the assessee had deposited Rs.50,00,000/- in 54EC bonds on 31.12.2013 and hence was eligible for deduction u/s.54EC. However, in respect of the claim of deduction u/s.54F, AO noted that the investment was made in acquisition of a vacant land and construction

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

iv)(h),(34) and (35). This was incidental to its business of banking. The business income on account of the assessee trading in the securities is assessable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

iv)(h),(34) and (35). This was incidental to its business of banking. The business income on account of the assessee trading in the securities is assessable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections

THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD.,KARUR vs. JCIT, TRICHY

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

iv)(h),(34) and (35). This was incidental to its business of banking. The business income on account of the assessee trading in the securities is assessable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections

DCIT, TRICHY vs. M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK. LTD., KARUR

Accordingly, the claim of the assessee that it had to be allowed on actual payment basis was, in our opinion, rightly allowed by the CIT(Appeals)

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

iv)(h),(34) and (35). This was incidental to its business of banking. The business income on account of the assessee trading in the securities is assessable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. The expenditure incurred in relation to stock-in-trade arising as a result of investment in shares and debentures is deductible under sections

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

property matter as claimed by the\nassessee is not acceptable in the eyes of law. We find that the reconstitution of\npartnership deed has been made by altering the share of profit among the partners\nbased on the family arrangement, wherein all the partners are of one family. Hence,\nwe find that, this agreement is in substance a family arrangement

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]

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

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]

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

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]

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

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]

36,22,227 4. As mentioned at para 3 (vii) above, for denying the exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer had cited certain specific instances which, according to him, attracted the rigours of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act. These are listed hereunder:- (i) An agreement for purchase of 22.34 acres of land

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.

36 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 (proportionate to the Developers constructed area) using the power of attorney document granted by the Owners to the developer simultaneous to the execution of the JDA. Obligation of the Owners: Para 13 — (page no.47 & 48 of JDA and Page no.67 &68 of Paper book - Vol.1 13.3: The Developer shall have the power to sell the Developer

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

36 months.\nSubsequently the assesse entered into an agreement with M/s Jeypore\nSugar Mills Limited for a purchase of house property measuring land\narea of 20.945 grounds with an old residential building situated at\nSundar Mahal, Gopalapuram, Chennai for a consideration of\nRs.141,25,00,000/-: The enter consideration paid to M/s Jeypore Sugar\nMills Limited was through RTGS from

TNCP LLP.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), COIMBATORE

In the result, the quantum\nNo

property attracting the provisions of\nsection 23(1) of the Act, after providing standard deduction at 30%.\nFurthermore, the AO proposed to disallow the certain payments / contributions\nof Provident Fund/ESI received from employee which were deposited by the\nassessee beyond the due date of making payment to such relevant funds within\nthe meaning of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

36 to 67 of the said annexure contain details of financial statements of M/s.Enerk International Holdings Limited for the F.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14. From these seized materials, it is noticed that M/s.Enerk International Holdings Limited has invested in its associated company víz., M/s.R.K.Powergen Private Limited i.e. the assessee company to the extent of USD 3,22,50,000 ason

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

iv) Multiplicity of the transactions in the accounts or specialized nature of the assessee's business activities.\n(v) Lastly, bearing in mind the interest of the revenue.\n\nThus, it is the interpretation of the AO with regard to the veracity of the books of accounts of the said tax payer that would warrant special audit in terms

G-TECH STONE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

iv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment can be arbitrary or made without any relevance