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.

Capital gains as on the date of conversion can be offered in the year of actual sale and the difference in sale price and market value on conversion will be offered as business profits. e. The appellant computed the fair market value of the property under consideration as per the guideline value prevailing in the period

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS effected by the respective companies on the accrual of dividend would clearly establish the intention of the assessee. 12. The Assessing Officer in the process had further held that the adjustment of the dividend income against the interest payable by the companies in which :-6-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 the Assessee had interest

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS effected by the respective companies on the accrual of dividend would clearly establish the intention of the assessee. 12. The Assessing Officer in the process had further held that the adjustment of the dividend income against the interest payable by the companies in which :-6-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 the Assessee had interest

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

TDS u/s.194IA as required for transfer of land as Capital asset and the land is immediately developed as residential project by this company. c) The assessee has claimed this land as agricultural land without furnishing any proof such as the land was put to use for agricultural purposes and proof of agricultural activity carried out in her land

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

TDS". If one reads the observation of the Supreme Court, the words "such sum" clearly indicate that the observation refers to a case of composite payment where the payer has a doubt regarding the inclusion of an amount in such payment which is exigible to tax in India. In our view, the above observations of this Court in Transmission Corpn

P.V.GOPALAKRISHNA,VELLORE vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

TDS and also ground no.4 and made an endorsement in the appeal petition. The first ground raised by the assessee is that 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer on denying the exemption u/s.54EC of the Act investment in REC capital gains

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains at ` 3,68,30,254/- iii) Disallowance of bad debts of rs 14,21,618/- 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a public limited company with objects, inter alia, of manufacturing yarn. The Assessee filed the return of income on 30/03/2011 for the Assessment year 2009-10, admitting a total income

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains at ` 3,68,30,254/- iii) Disallowance of bad debts of rs 14,21,618/- 3. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a public limited company with objects, inter alia, of manufacturing yarn. The Assessee filed the return of income on 30/03/2011 for the Assessment year 2009-10, admitting a total income

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS and not offering capital gain income in return of income. The assessee filed her response on 24.01.2022 wherein she again

KAKB DEVELOPERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 3 (4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. However, this claim was rejected by the AO ignoring the assessee’s contention that the property has been held by the assessee as long term asset and since the assessee has continuously and consistently been purchasing the land and made it as layout on division of land into plots, hence the Learned Assessing Officer came to a conclusion

MEGA CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ACIT(OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. However, this claim was rejected by the AO ignoring the assessee’s contention that the property has been held by the assessee as long term asset and since the assessee has continuously and consistently been purchasing the land and made it as layout on division of land into plots, hence the Learned Assessing Officer came to a conclusion

E.MURUGAN,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(30, TAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 E. Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/91, Padavattamman Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(3), Koil Street, Padur Post, Tambaram. Omr Road, Kazhipattur, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Cixpm-8913-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

capital gain in the hands of the assessee. One more fact that the assessee claimed entire TDS deducted u/s. 194LA

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

capital gains has been calculated while omitting to consider cost of acquisition of Rs.2,55,70,923/-. ii) TDS claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS on interest paid of Rs.8,94,831/- to M/s.Cholamandalam Finance Ltd. ii) Addition of Rs.10,18,03,600/- by treating sale of land situated at Villukuri Village, Kanyakumari District as taxable long-term capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS, the same constituted final tax liability of the assessee. The same is erroneous presumption. It could be noted that the case was specifically reopened to bring to tax capital gains

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KEEZHAYUR SOWRIRAJAN SREENIVASAN,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

capital gains towards consideration received for extinguishment of his right in the property. 10. In this case, the assessee had acquired right in a property and said right has been extinguished in favour of the builder and received compensation. The builder has paid compensation through proper banking channel after deducting necessary TDS

S RAJASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated above

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

TDS on payment of Rs.1,42,82,956/- on account of rent. Subsequently, on perusal of P&L account & audit report of the assessee, the AO found that the assessee has debited expenses of Rs.69,21,472/- on account of GST-interest & late fee. The AO made an addition of Rs.8,83,21,384/- as long term capital gain

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Capital Gain’, the question of allowing deduction u/s.54F of the Act, does not arise, and thus, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) to reject deduction claimed u/s.54/54F of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly- allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

capital gain is liable to be taxed in the relevant assessment year, assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.54 of the Act, since new asset has been purchased within the stipulated time. 8. As regards, alternative plea of assessee is concerned, we note that the original asset was sold vide registered sale deed dated 23.03.2016 vide Doc.No.735/2016 of SRO, Adyar