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

5A to section 271(1)(c) is\ninapplicable. Thus, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) was\ntherefore justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO.\n29.\nIn rejoinder, the Ld.DR fairly conceded that although the\nassessee has offered additional income in the return filed\nu/s.153A of the Act, such disclosure is not on account of any\nincriminating

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) is\ninapplicable. Thus, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) was\ntherefore justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO.\n29.\nIn rejoinder, the Ld.DR fairly conceded that although the\nassessee has offered additional income in the return filed\nu/s.153A of the Act, such disclosure is not on account of any\nincriminating

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) is\ninapplicable. Thus, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) was\ntherefore justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO.\n29.\nIn rejoinder, the Ld.DR fairly conceded that although the\nassessee has offered additional income in the return filed\nu/s.153A of the Act, such disclosure is not on account of any\nincriminating

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) is\ninapplicable. Thus, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) was\ntherefore justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO.\n29.\nIn rejoinder, the Ld.DR fairly conceded that although the\nassessee has offered additional income in the return filed\nu/s.153A of the Act, such disclosure is not on account of any\nincriminating

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

68,564 : 2,79,910 -------------- -------------- Assessed Book Profit : 9,66,375 -------------- 7. Share of loss from the two firms were debited by the assessee in its Profit & Loss A/c and the profit shown in the P&L A/c was after these debits. What can be added to the profit as shown in the Profit & Loss A/c and what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, The Dcit, 121, Shankar Nagar, M.G. Road, Central Circle-1(2), Pammal, Chennai-600 075. Chennai. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1103/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. The Dcit, Shri Bondalapati Shivaji Rao, Central Circle-1(2), 121, Shankar Nagar, Chennai. M.G. Road, Pammal, Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aahpb 0083 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances, wherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by holding as under: - "4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have passed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note was prepared

BONDALAPATI SHIVAJI RAO,CHENNAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and\nappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

68) rendered on similar facts and circumstances,\nwherein also the assessment order was quashed by this Tribunal, by\nholding as under: -\n\"4. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties.\nLearned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that A.O. should have\npassed the assessment order under section 153C since satisfaction note\nwas prepared

INTEGRATED INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON COP. WARD1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

5A, 5th Floor Kences Tower, Road, Vs. No.1, Ramakrishna Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai Chennai – 600 017. – 34. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAFFI-3857-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT(DR) सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 21.07.2022 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

5A, 5th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AACCI5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश

INVESTOR FINANCIAL EDUCATION ACADEMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

5A, 5th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [PAN:AACCI5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri M. Rajan, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश

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.

68 of Paper book - Vol.1 13.3: The Developer shall have the power to sell the Developer’s constructed area after obtaining statutory approvals and the proportionate 60% undivided share in the Schedule property and enter into agreements and execute sale deeds and other conveyances in favour of prospective purchasers in respect of the Developer’s constructed area and the proportionate

M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

ACIT LTU 2 , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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.

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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.

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

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

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

5A of New Appendix 1 read with Rule 5, the assessee is entitled for 50% depreciation on new motor vehicles acquired and put to use after certain dates. However, the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) has relied upon Circular No. 609 dated 29.07.1991 and judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case