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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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

Housing Pvt Ltd v. DCIT (supra) wherein it\nwas held that, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in\nrelation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to\nmeet the foundational tests as specified in the first proviso to Section\n149(1) of the Act. The Court held that, a reassessment action would

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) of the 1961 Act has also referred to Profits ‘derived’ and hence direct and immediate nexus of Profits and the business of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of house in India for residential purposes is to be seen. On this threshold, the decision of learned CIT(A) in allowing deduction with respect

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

House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee on 16.12.2021 in the course of which, several incriminating material concerning the unaccounted income generated from real estate business and unaccounted payments made for purchase of lands was found. Before the AO, the assessee vide letter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43

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

House and M/s Jayapriya Theatre respectively. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the assessee on 16.12.2021 in the course of which, several incriminating material concerning the unaccounted income generated from real estate business and unaccounted payments made for purchase of lands was found. Before the AO, the assessee vide letter ITA Nos.1251 & 1252/Chny/2025 & CO Nos.43

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 54F(1) as the assessee has carried out the construction of a residential building f a residential building, which includes the purchase of the purchase of land, and therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the assessee was entitled to the benefit of sec.54F for the above said amount

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.

43- Vol.1.) The Developer is hereby granted leave and license to enter the Sch. Property pursuant to the execution of this JDA and shall thereafter be entitled to commence and complete development of the schedule property in accordance with the approvals and licenses. It is hereby clarified that such permission to develop the schedule property shall not be construed

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]

43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.50,00,000/- during previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, were diversion of income/property of the trust attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. (vii) Whether acquisition of property

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]

43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.50,00,000/- during previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, were diversion of income/property of the trust attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. (vii) Whether acquisition of property

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]

43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.50,00,000/- during previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, were diversion of income/property of the trust attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. (vii) Whether acquisition of property

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]

43 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Whether advance of Rs.1,00,00,000/- paid to Shri. Arjunlal Sunderdoss during previous year relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.50,00,000/- during previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, were diversion of income/property of the trust attracting Section 13(1) ( c) of the Act. (vii) Whether acquisition of property

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

In the result the appeal is dismissed

property.\nReference under Section 142A is incorrect when specific provision\nof Section 55A available\n19. The Learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the AO wrongly\nreferred the matter to District Valuation Officer when Assesse has\nsubmitted Valuation Report by Approved Valuer. The AO ought to have\nrecorded satisfaction under Sec.55A and in the present case there is no\nrecording

DDIT, CHENNAI vs. VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES,, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (In I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

property and it is not in dispute that the Managing Trustee returned entire amount with interest of `4,06,92,078/-, the assessee is entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, confirmed. 12 I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/13 C.O. No.15/Mds/14 10. The assessee

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year