Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Saroja Naidu

128 Taxmann.com 127High Court2021#22312 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 54 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(42A)Section 48(iii)Section 49

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Saroja Naidu

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 1 1, Ahmedabad vs. Bharat Lakhaji Nandwana, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1366/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. UktiFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti

Section 49Section 54Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1366/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Bharat Lakhaji Nandwana, Tax, 701-A, Pragati Apartment, Circle-2(1)(1), Opp. Sampati Flats, Ahmedabad Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No.AGAPN4641A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ukti Shah, ARs Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER SIDDHA…

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 54Section 80C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम# BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Income Tax Officer, New No.61, Old No. 29, First Main Road, vs. Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAQPK-4329-Q] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. N. Arjun Raj…

ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai vs. Easwari Sukanya Krishnan, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 403/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.403/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ito Smt. Easwari Sukanya Krishnan बनाम/ International Taxation Ward-1(2), 6, Judge Jambulingam Street, Vs. Chennai. Mylapore,Chennai-600 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bnopk-2411-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue In The Captioned Appeal Is Determination Of Base Year From Which The Benefit Of Indexation Would Be Available To The Assessee. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee & Accordingly, The Appeal Was Disposed-Off With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Pleaded For Restoration Of Assessment Order. Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. 2. The Assessee Sold Certain Property During This Year For Rs.394.70 Lacs. The Assessee Claimed Indexation Of Cost From Financial Year 2001-

For Appellant: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

…the assessee acquired the rights in the property only from the date of settlement and therefore, indexation benefit would be available only from financial year 2014-15. The assessee relied on the ruling of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT vs Saroja Naidu (128 Taxmann.com 127) to support the computations. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO allowed indexation from financial year 2014-15 and re-computed gains at Rs.210.09 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim in terms of cited decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 3. We find that the adjudication in th…