CIT v. Shanthi Chandran

241 ITR 371High Court2000#13817 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shanthi Chandran

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kct Papers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

…en in terms of section 49(1 )(i) of the Act. This view is fortified by the plethora rulings of Madras High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.L. Ramanathan, [2003} 128 Taxman 87 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shanthi Chandran, (2003) 241 ITR 371 (Mad), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kay Arr Enterprises, (2008) 299 ITR 348 and Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Baldev Raj Charla, (2009) 121 TN 366 (Delhi). Moreover, the period of holding of the shares has to be taken with reference to the year in which shares were first acquired by the previous ow…

Shri Ramesh Allada, Usa vs. ITO, Intnl. Taxn.1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54

…the original cost, if it is to his advantage. "[Circular No.31 (LXXVII-5) D of 1962, dated 21-9-1962.]” 7.3 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran [2000] 241 ITR 371,373 (Mad.) and CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy [1985] 152 ITR 669, 673-74 (Mad.) 7.4 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-D.R and Sr. D.R relied on the assessment order and that of the DRP. 7.5 We noted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran, supra, has considered the identical issue and has held that the family settleme…

Shri Suresh Allada, Australia vs. ITO, Intnl Taxation Ward -I(I), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 54

…the original cost, if it is to his advantage. "[Circular No.31 (LXXVII-5) D of 1962, dated 21-9-1962.]” 7.3 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran [2000] 241 ITR 371,373 (Mad.) and CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy [1985] 152 ITR 669, 673-74 (Mad.) 7.4 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-D.R and Sr. D.R relied on the assessment order and that of the DRP. 7.5 We noted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran, supra, has considered the identical issue and has held that the family settleme…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 15, Chennai vs. Anitha Kumaran, Chennai

ITA 1164/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

…tween the family members as to their respective property rights are settled. The settlement only defines pre-existing joint-interest as separate interest and hence, there would be no conveyance. The decision of Hon’ble Madras Court in CIT V/s Shanthi Chandran 241 ITR 371 was also referred wherein it was held that where an asset is acquired on a family arrangement then it is at par with an asset acquired on partition or any other succession. Reliance was placed on the other decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangasami Gounden V/s Nachiapa Gounden (AIR 1918 PC 196) to support the submissions that family settlemen…

Saireddy Pruthviraj Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1513/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 49(1)

…g Officer and Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that it is the settled position of law that nothing could be added or nothing could be subtracted from the cost of acquisition of the previous owner as is held in the decisions reported in CIT Vs. Shanthi Chandran (2000) 241 ITR 371 (Madras) and Sonia Maria Mistri Vs. ITO (2013) 141 ITD 508 (Mumbai Tribunal). He submitted that is not known for what reasons the mother of the assessee added something to the cost of acquisition and what is the basis for such addition. He submitted that the loss speaks of ‘cost of acquisition’, but not ‘fair market value’. He, therefore, submits…

Wundevalli Krishna Deepti, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3096/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. CIT
Section 49(1)Section 54

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER अपील सं./ITA No.3096/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Wundevalli Krishna Deepthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No.32, Old No.19, F-3, I Floor, Non corporate Ward – 1(4), Jains Anurag Apartments, Arcot Street, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [PAN: DQDPK 5546M ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A अपीला…

ITO 5(2)4), Mumbai vs. P.M. Rungta (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7955/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito 5(2)(4) P.M. Rungta (Huf). 66 Ali R.No.571, Chambers, Tamarind Lane, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aafhp2630C Revenue By Shri Somnath Ukkal (Dr) Respondent Assessee By Nitesh Joshi (Ar)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 ITO 5(2)(4) P.M. Rungta (HUF). 66 Ali R.No.571, Chambers, Tamarind Lane, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400023 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.AAFHP2630C Revenue by Shri Somnath Ukkal (DR) Respondent assessee by Nitesh Joshi (AR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of 2/11/2015 Hearing : 18/11/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Or…

CIT v. Shanthi Chandran (241 ITR 371) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax