DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Housing v. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 698/38\ntaxmann.com 203 held that where after a search was conducted, the\nassessee filed the return of his income and the Department had accepted\nsuch return, then levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified.\nFrom the above cases it would be clear that when an assessee has filed\nrevised returns

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

PENUPETRUNI CHINNA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 45(5A), though applicable from A.Y. 2018-19, lays down that in cases of specified agreement for development of real estate project, capital gain shall be chargeable to tax in the year in which completion certificate is given by the competent authority. This will put at rest many disputes arising in cases of JDA regarding the year in which

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

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

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

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MADHU PARASURAM, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 54F the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the cost of a residential house either purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or has within period of three years after than constructed residential house"" The above exemption is available only in respect of one residential

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPINATH RAMAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 54F the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the cost of a residential house either purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or has within period of three years after than constructed residential house"" The above exemption is available only in respect of one residential

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

properties of neem, turmeric, apple cider vinegar and salt. We are safe on food and tough on germs. — Professional Care Raaga Professional - Raaga Professional Is a fast growing professional care brand that offers range of products catering to most of the services offered by salons. Be it the Hair Care range (Pro Botanix), which consists of shampoos & conditioners

INVESTORS FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2565/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : ---

5A, 5th floor, Kences Tower, Ward 4, No.1, Ramakrishna Street, Chennai 600 034. T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [PAN AACCI 5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Adv ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Vijay Kumar Punna, J. Standing Counsel. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, PARGE TAX PAYER UNIT 2

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha(अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) S.

House, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. PAN: AABCC 6633K -do- 11 1759/Chny/2011 2006-07 -do- -do- -do- 12 1676/Chny/2011 2007-08 -do- -do- 13 1366/Chny/2013 2008-09 -do- -do- 14 - 949 to 951 2010-11 2010-11 16 /Chny/2018 2013-14 अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Mr. Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate & Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Revenue