M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

xii) The user charges will be finalized in consultation with the Development Commissioner and the users. This shall be subject to revision as per the agreed terms. (xiv) The authorized operations shall be carried out in terms of the parameters laid down in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 the rules and the orders made there-under and in accordance

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

housing to be allowed in phases of 20% in each phase,\nlinked to occupation in the processing area;\"\n15. Pursuant to the above approval, M/s. MWCDL is noted to have\nentered into a co-developer agreement dated 10.03.2008 with the\nassessee (M/s. MRDL) for development of residential infrastructure in an\nextent of area of 55 acres of land which

KIRTHISIMHAN WIJEYANAYAKE,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

1) appeal raised by the appellant, before him, is opposed to law and unsustainable in the facts and the circumstances of the case. …… 6) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is eligible for claiming capital gains on the entire 7 flats and not merely on one flat. 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

xii) The user charges will be finalized in consultation with the\nDevelopment Commissioner and the users. This shall be subject to\nrevision as per the agreed terms.\n(xiv) The authorized operations shall be carried out in terms of the\nparameters laid down in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 the rules\nand the orders made there-under

SAMIAPPAGOUNDER DHARMARAJ,TIRUPUR vs. ADDL. CIT,RANGE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

AMIT KAPOOR,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

house property and capital gains. The AO after verification of the details filed by the assessee, took note of the fact that there was no cash deposits in the bank account even during demonetization period. However, he noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.7,68,910/- and Rs.2,52,180/- in two different jewel loan account

M/S INNOVTIVE MICROFINANCE FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION,CHENNAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTIONS),CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

xii. has lent to 81% of the borrowers whose monthly income is below the poverty line. According to the GOI Planning commission’s poverty line where the monthly consumption expenditure of a family is Rs.4,860 in rural areas and 7,035 in Urban areas. Further, it was argued that the AO has disallowed exemption on the basis that