DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AB MAURI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / It(Tp)A No’S.84 To 86/Chny/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Plot No.218 & 219, Vs Of Income-Tax, Corporate Bommasandra Jigani Link Circle-1(1), Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No’S.3315 To 3317/Chny/2018 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 11- 12 & 12-13 वष" The Deputy Commissioner M/S.Ab Mauri India Pvt. Of Income-Tax, Corporate Vs Ltd., Circle-1(1), Plot No.218 & 219, Chennai – 600 034. Bommasandra Jigani Link Road, Bengaluru – 560 015. Pan: Aaeca 9923 H Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

section 32(1)(ii). The AO further held that since there is no right, there is no question of depreciation. 4.3 The Transfer Pricing Officer(TPO) made adjustments for the Management Fee claimed to be paid by assessee to its Associated Enterprises(AE), only for A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13. We are hereby discussing and adjudicating issue-wise. First

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. C.H.ROBINSON WORLDWIDE FREIGHT INDIA P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri G. Manjunatha

920/- by making additions towards adjustments to arm’s length price of international transactions of the assessee as suggested by the TPO vide his order dated 23.01.2015 and also additions towards disallowance of CO No.28/Chny/2017 depreciation on non-compete fee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority and the learned CIT(A) for the reasons stated

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 and after considering the submissions and objections of the assessee, passed on order u/s. 263 on 20.03.2013, directing the AO to re-do the assessment on the following three issues after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 25.03.2012 determining the total income

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 and after considering the submissions and objections of the assessee, passed on order u/s. 263 on 20.03.2013, directing the AO to re-do the assessment on the following three issues after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 25.03.2012 determining the total income

D.SHANTHA,VILLUPURAM vs. ITO, VILLUPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 and after considering the submissions and objections of the assessee, passed on order u/s. 263 on 20.03.2013, directing the AO to re-do the assessment on the following three issues after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 25.03.2012 determining the total income

DCIT, VILLUPURAM vs. D.SANTHA, KALLAKURICHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 and after considering the submissions and objections of the assessee, passed on order u/s. 263 on 20.03.2013, directing the AO to re-do the assessment on the following three issues after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Subsequently, the AO passed an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 25.03.2012 determining the total income

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

920 2008-09 2,65,78,640 2009-10 5,10,37,770 2010-11 5,73,77,152 2011-12 1,95,28,380 2012-13 (4,53,089) Assessee M/s. Shiv Sahai & Sons (India) Ltd, had filed its return for the impugned assessment years declaring following income. Assessment year Amount

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

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

920 2008-09 2,65,78,640 2009-10 5,10,37,770 2010-11 5,73,77,152 2011-12 1,95,28,380 2012-13 (4,53,089) Assessee M/s. Shiv Sahai & Sons (India) Ltd, had filed its return for the impugned assessment years declaring following income. Assessment year Amount

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

920 2008-09 2,65,78,640 2009-10 5,10,37,770 2010-11 5,73,77,152 2011-12 1,95,28,380 2012-13 (4,53,089) Assessee M/s. Shiv Sahai & Sons (India) Ltd, had filed its return for the impugned assessment years declaring following income. Assessment year Amount

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

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

920 2008-09 2,65,78,640 2009-10 5,10,37,770 2010-11 5,73,77,152 2011-12 1,95,28,380 2012-13 (4,53,089) Assessee M/s. Shiv Sahai & Sons (India) Ltd, had filed its return for the impugned assessment years declaring following income. Assessment year Amount

VAANI ESTATES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 3(4), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1352/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Ito, No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Corporate Ward – 3(4), Abhiramapuram, Chennai Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecv0933A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

920/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s.143(2) of the Act was served to the assessee on 23.09.2015. Finally assessment order was passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 16.11.2016 wherein the Ld.AO had made addition of Rs.23,31,68,600/- towards ‘Income

ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. LATE SHRI MAHAVEER BHANDARI, LEGAL HEIR- SMT. LALITHA BHANDARI, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

920/- by adding an amount of Rs.7,85,10,196/- being difference on account of LTCG and amount of Rs. 99,39,998/- u/s.28(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the total income of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the same the assessee preferred the instant appeal. The AO stated that the case was selected for scrutiny under

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GAYATHRI RAMAMURTHY, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 3429/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Smt. Gayathri Ramamurthy, Income Tax, Vs. No. 15, Manor Apartments, Non Corporate Circle 16(1), Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Abwpg4193K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Sundaresan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 21.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Adopt The Cost Of Acquisition At Rs.1,17,000/- As Against Rs.75,000/- Adopted By The Assessing Officer.

920/-. The 3 I.T.A. No.3429/M/16 return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the assessee filed all details against statutory notices. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee sold a house property on 24.02.2012 along with other two co-owners for a total consideration

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]

920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected by private education institutions was nothing but a price for selling education and this was contrary

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]

920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected by private education institutions was nothing but a price for selling education and this was contrary

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]

920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected by private education institutions was nothing but a price for selling education and this was contrary

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]

920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected by private education institutions was nothing but a price for selling education and this was contrary

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

920 58,40,90,463 Similarly, the value of undisclosed sale of malaimann in his hands was determined as under: - FY Qty. of rough Volume of Cost of Value of Malaimann stones (as per Malaimann actually Malaimann records of AD, quarried as per (market M&G) Drone survey price) (allocated pro-rata ratio