ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

TDS was also deducted in the name of the firm, this has not been duly rebutted in the impugned order. He vehemently argued that there is no error in not taxing the capital gains in the hands of the assessee (in her capacity as the legal heir of the deceased partner), Hence the assessment order is not erroneous

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.

long-term capital gains at Rs.2,45,19,108/-, by adopting the entire receipt including the advance for the balance land as sale consideration at Rs.2,50,00,000/-.The relevant findings and observations of the AO are as under: “a) The land was sold by assessee comprised in survey no.182 measuring 121 cents, in Siruseri Village, Thiruporur Taluk, Kancheepuram

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 bonds falling in two financial years. 4. The Brief facts

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

long term capital gains is computed as under:” 4. Accordingly, the A.O assessed the entire capital gain in the hands of the assessee. One more fact that the assessee claimed entire TDS

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

Long-Term Capital Gains as well as Short Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. It could also be seen that initially the assessee has not computed gains on this transaction and never offered the same in the return of income. The same is ostensibly on the assumption that whatever tax was deducted at source by the bank

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

long term 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

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

long term 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

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain’. The AO and the Ld.CIT(A) without appreciating relevant facts simply rejected the claim of the assessee and assessed gains under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain’ and also rejected deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT Jaipur :: 6 :: Benches in the case of Shri Ijyaraj Singh

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

BHAGWANDAS H JUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO N.C. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2701, 774 & 2253/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mr. Bhagwandas H.Jumani Flat 2B, 2Nd Floor, Tatvam, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) 118, A.K.Samy Nagar, 9Th Street, Chennai-600 034. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Pan : Ablpj 0980A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain. Therefore, we reverse findings of the lower authorities on this issue holding that surplus arising out of sale of shares as business income and accept the plea of the assessee. 15. The appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed. 16. The next issue of the assessee is as regards to order

BHAGWANDAS H.JUMANI ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2701, 774 & 2253/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mr. Bhagwandas H.Jumani Flat 2B, 2Nd Floor, Tatvam, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) 118, A.K.Samy Nagar, 9Th Street, Chennai-600 034. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Pan : Ablpj 0980A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain. Therefore, we reverse findings of the lower authorities on this issue holding that surplus arising out of sale of shares as business income and accept the plea of the assessee. 15. The appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed. 16. The next issue of the assessee is as regards to order

BHAGWANDAS H.JUMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2701, 774 & 2253/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mr. Bhagwandas H.Jumani Flat 2B, 2Nd Floor, Tatvam, Non-Corporate Ward-10(1) 118, A.K.Samy Nagar, 9Th Street, Chennai-600 034. Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Pan : Ablpj 0980A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain. Therefore, we reverse findings of the lower authorities on this issue holding that surplus arising out of sale of shares as business income and accept the plea of the assessee. 15. The appeal of the assessee on this issue is allowed. 16. The next issue of the assessee is as regards to order

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

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS amounting to Rs.8,40,34,976/- and refund of Rs. 3,54,77,480/-. Tax :- 5 -: was computed as per section 115E i.e. Tax on investment income and LTCG. 4. The ld. AO, thereafter, issued show-cause notice dated 26-03- 2022 to the assessee as under: “Reason: Bogus long term 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

TDS as per law. The parties have confirmed transactions. The Assessing Officer has never disputed these facts, however, denied benefit of long term capital gain

RAMASAMI PALANISAMY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted for the\nentire amount only in the name of the assessee.\nThe\npayment of sale consideration by the HindusthanEductaional and\nCharitable Trust, the purchaser, to the assessee and his wife,\ndeduction of tax at source in the PAN of assessee, the assessee\nadmitting long term capital gain