DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which

DYNACON EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy

42 ITR 49 (SC)] which has been relied upon by the High Court. That was a case where the company was incorporated with the object of buying and developing landed properties and promoting and developing markets. Thus, the main objective of the company was to develop the landed properties into markets. It so happened that some shops and stalls, which

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

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

42,000 (LBCHE0001668876 -loan against property\n8 Tuticorin, TAMIL NADU, 628001 Self Occupied Self Occupied\n9 Nanganallur Residential House, Chennai 600061 Self Occupied Self Occupied - Deemed Let out not considered and Funds not borrowed for acquisition or Construction of the House Property Home Equity Loan\n-22.02.379 -19,47,366\nWith regard to the seventh issue of addition made u/s.56

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. AMPA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2202, 2203, 2204 & 2205/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ampa Housing Development (P) Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Limited, No. 19, Raman Street, Chennai 600 034. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacca7430R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. I.P. Roopa Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 15.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. The Only Common Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue For All The Assessment Years Relates To Apportioning The Intermingled Common Expenditure With Relation To Business Income & Let Out Property Income In The Ratio Of 50:50 Without Valid Basis.

house property and business. 7.2 After considering the submissions of the assessee the ld. CIT(A) has observed as under: “I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant. As pointed out by the appellant that the said expenses have to be incurred for carrying out his business, irrespective of the quantum of revenue/turnover involved. If this proportionate method

P.R.EASWAR KUMAR ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 16 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

42,40,000 (iii) Further the assessee had repaid the housing loan obtained from LIC to the extent of Rs.1,38,70,790/- on 19.03.2013 and thereafter the loan account was closed on 04.04.2013. (iv) Thus the assessee had utilized the sale proceeds towards the construction of the new residential house property within the due date of filing the return

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with business or profession”, these participation interests are required to be treated as capital assets. Under section 45, “any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset, effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54 E, 54EA

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

House Property by following the procedure laid down under the Act\nat para 6.4.6., had confirmed the addition of Rs.1,38,70,048/- made as deemed\ndividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act at para 6.5.3 and confirmed the addition of\nRs.92,95,305/- made u/s.56(2)(viii)(c) of the Act at para 6.6.5 of the impugned\norder

ROSHAN DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

42(2011) and other case laws will not be applicable as in this case, the transfer of asset from grandfather to father and to grandson is not through inheritance. And on such sale of asset, where asset is not acquired by inheritance, the benefit of section 49(l) of the Act will not be available. Thus, the asset is owned

DEEP DAVID,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 791/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Deep David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” Vs. International Taxation 1(1), No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3357R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 792/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 Shri Roshan David, The Income Tax Officer, C/O R. Bupathy & Co., “Vibgyor” International Taxation 1(1), Vs. No. 139, 1St Floor, Kodambakkam Chennai 600 034. High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Borpd3355P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 14.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Since

42(2011) and other case laws will not be applicable as in this case, the transfer of asset from grandfather to father and to grandson is not through inheritance. And on such sale of asset, where asset is not acquired by inheritance, the benefit of section 49(l) of the Act will not be available. Thus, the asset is owned

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

house within three years of sale of property and to obtain the benefit of construction of new residential property, the assessee should have deposited the Long term capital gains before due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act in Capital Gains Accounts Scheme. Since the assessee has not complied the prerequisites of capital gains account

JAGDISH RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunatha

42,800/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return on 05.09.2014 admitting total income of Rs.7,84,900/- after claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act, for Rs.13,57,906/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has derived long term capital gain from sale of property

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

42. Further, we find that section 153A of the Act itself creates the fine distinction/differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to the date of search, the assessment proceedings are pending or not before the AO. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

42. Further, we find that section 153A of the Act itself creates the fine distinction/differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to the date of search, the assessment proceedings are pending or not before the AO. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

42. Further, we find that section 153A of the Act itself creates the fine distinction/differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to the date of search, the assessment proceedings are pending or not before the AO. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

42. Further, we find that section 153A of the Act itself creates the fine distinction/differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to the date of search, the assessment proceedings are pending or not before the AO. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

42. Further, we find that section 153A of the Act itself creates the fine distinction/differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to the date of search, the assessment proceedings are pending or not before the AO. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals