DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

property, being land or building or both, shares\nand securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.\n(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the\nincome chargeable to tax represented in the form of an asset or\nexpenditure in relation to an event or occasion of the value referred to\nin clause (b) of sub-section (1

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

Section 36(1)(viii) without calling for the income earned under the respective heads’ The assessee submitted before learned CIT(A), details of income earned under each of the activity :- Other Total Revenue Purpose of Operating Operating from S.No. Income In Rs. Loan income In Operations In Rs. Rs. A Construction 189,33,11,359 1

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

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

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

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

37(1) is applicable or not is academic in nature. Therefore, he submitted that there is no merit in arguments of the learned DR that Tribunal has every right to compute correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. He further submitted that no doubt, the Tribunal being final fact finding authority is having right to examine

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2227 & 2228/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Eastman Exports Global Tax, Clothing Pvt.Ltd. No.10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Circle-I Tirupur. Nagar South, Tirupur-641 603. Pan: Aaccc 0952E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

37(1) is applicable or not is academic in nature. Therefore, he submitted that there is no merit in arguments of the learned DR that Tribunal has every right to compute correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. He further submitted that no doubt, the Tribunal being final fact finding authority is having right to examine

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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]

Housing (P) Ltd, (2014) 368 ITR 565, for supporting his argument that land development expenditure could be proved through indirect evidence. In any case as per ld. Authorised Representative, there was nothing on record with the lower authorities to show that any such amount was diverted or used by the trustees for their benefit. On the cash refunds made against

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

house within a specified period. Thus the\nconcept of \"purchase” and \"transfer” of capital assets has been categorically\nand vividly defined and there is no scope for any confusion or controversy\ntherein. Law postulates that both the conditions deserve to be complied. It\n:- 24 -:\nITA No.690/Chny/2020\nis to be understood that legal compliances to requirement of a valid

M/S. CEEBROS HOTELS PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

property at MRC Nagar should be added to cost of the asset, but cannot be claimed as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has discussed the issue at length in light of provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act along with Accounting Standard -16 issued by the ICAI and observed that