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

house property . It was submitted that all the loans given for commercial purposes be excluded while allowing deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act . It was prayed by learned DR that onus is on the assessee to prove that it is eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) of the 1961 Act and prayers were made

JANET CHRISTINE DEPENNING,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1319, 1320, 1321, 1322 & 1323/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2020-21 Janet Christine Depenning, The Income Tax Officer, 120, Velachery Main Road, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Guindy,Chennai – 600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aebpd 2408L]

property service, which requires patents and trade mark to be registered in various countries. The assessee has engaged foreign associate and paid them without deducting the tax u/s 195 of the Act. The assessee has argued that the foreign associates are predominantly individuals and in some cases are body corporate and these services rendered are either professional services or business

ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE VI(1), CHENNAI vs. SAIPEM INDIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा'रण वष' /Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 9(1) of the Act. Further, they held that the software supplied was a copyrighted article and not a copyright and the payment received by the assessee in respect of the software cannot be considered as 'Royalty' either under the Act or DTAA. 12. Similar question arose for consideration before the Authority for Advance Rulings in case of Dassault

RAJESH MIRAJKER,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-10(1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Rajesh Mirajker, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 4/1, Abu Castle, 4Th Floor, Of Income Tax, 925, Poonamallee High Road, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpm 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022

1), Chennai. Chennai. [PAN: AAHPM 9213 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.M.Karunakaran, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

M.K.JAILANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

house / real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of " " fees for technical services as explained in the context of Section 9 (1

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, 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

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, 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,

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

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