UPPU KARUNASESH,CHENNAI vs. JCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.978 & 979/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

house property. 3. Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee has let out two properties during the years under consideration. The first property is situated at Door No.10, Spurtank Road, Chennai-31. According to the Ld. counsel, the assessee received rental income of ₹98,21,750/-. The service tax paid by the assessee

DOSHI ESTATES,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property was transferred at the rate of guideline value. According to the Ld. D.R., the profit on sale of land was also included as profit from housing project. Moreover, the exorbitant profit shown by the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 80

DOSHI ESTATES,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3463/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.966/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Doshi Estates, The Assistant Commissioner Of 3H, Century Plaza, V. Income Tax, 560, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Non-Corporate Circle – 3, Chennai - 600 018. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aagfd 4592 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

property was transferred at the rate of guideline value. According to the Ld. D.R., the profit on sale of land was also included as profit from housing project. Moreover, the exorbitant profit shown by the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 80

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

house property • Profits and gains of business and profession • Capital gains • Income from other sources 5.2 The income computed under various heads of income in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act shall be aggregated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the IT Act, 1961. This means that first the income/loss from various

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

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman Koil Street, Madipakkam Rs. 48,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 14,400 Rs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam Rs. 1,20,000 Less 30% standard Deduction Rs. 36,000 Rs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

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.

80,946 3,55,987 PART 3: Lease Rent Paid 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 7.3 In this case, while computing the incomes under the head house property and income from business, the assessee had clearly identified the expenditure and claimed it accordingly. Further, with regard to the expenditure which is common

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.

80,946 3,55,987 PART 3: Lease Rent Paid 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 7.3 In this case, while computing the incomes under the head house property and income from business, the assessee had clearly identified the expenditure and claimed it accordingly. Further, with regard to the expenditure which is common

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.

80,946 3,55,987 PART 3: Lease Rent Paid 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 7.3 In this case, while computing the incomes under the head house property and income from business, the assessee had clearly identified the expenditure and claimed it accordingly. Further, with regard to the expenditure which is common

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.

80,946 3,55,987 PART 3: Lease Rent Paid 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 6,00,000 7.3 In this case, while computing the incomes under the head house property and income from business, the assessee had clearly identified the expenditure and claimed it accordingly. Further, with regard to the expenditure which is common

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

House Property\n1. Commercial property at Ponniamman\nKoil Street, Madipakkam\nRs. 48,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 14,400\nRs.23,600\n2. Residential Property at Selaiyur\nRs. 1,20,000\nLess 30% standard Deduction\n3. Navin Building, Madipakkam\nLess 30% standard Deduction\nRs. 36,000\nRs. 1,20,000\nRs. 36,000\nRs.84,000\nRs.84,000\n4. Sadasivam Nagar

SREE KAILAI SPINNERS P LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 80-IA of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return. The income of `60,81,004/- generated from the operation of windmill was bonafidely believed by the assessee that it has to be assessed in 5 I.T.A. No.1226/Mds/17 the assessment year 2014-15. Since the majority of income was the income from house property

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

Section 54F of the Act invalid and baseless. 6.. For the aforesaid grounds and for other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing, the order of CIT(A) may be quashed and justice be rendered.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 28.10.2018 declaring total income

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

section 2(47)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, it would be clear that the assessee’s father has lawfully extinguished his lifetime enjoyment right over the property. 5.1 The scheduled property was originally acquired by the grandfather of the assessees from the TNHB through allotment on 31.10.1969 and he had constructed a residential building with his own funds

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

section 2(47)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, it would be clear that the assessee’s father has lawfully extinguished his lifetime enjoyment right over the property. 5.1 The scheduled property was originally acquired by the grandfather of the assessees from the TNHB through allotment on 31.10.1969 and he had constructed a residential building with his own funds

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

80- IB; (h) "long-term finance" means any loan or advance where the terms under which moneys are loaned or advanced provide for repayment along with interest thereof during a period of not less than five years;” Thus, as can be seen from the statutory provisions, undisputedly the assessee is an housing finance company which holds registration certificate from

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ TECH PARK LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

80-IA of the Act in respect of rental income received from building. According to the Ld. D.R., it is not the business of the assessee to lease out the properties, therefore, the income has to be classified as income from house property. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ TECH PARK LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

80-IA of the Act in respect of rental income received from building. According to the Ld. D.R., it is not the business of the assessee to lease out the properties, therefore, the income has to be classified as income from house property. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KHIVRAJ TECH PARK LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1181, 1182 & 1183/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Khivraj Tech Park Ltd., Income Tax, V. 1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle – 4(2), Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aacck 4418 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

80-IA of the Act in respect of rental income received from building. According to the Ld. D.R., it is not the business of the assessee to lease out the properties, therefore, the income has to be classified as income from house property. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Section