SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

TDS.\nThe assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A).\n5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is\nretrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY\n2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the decision

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C (b) "fair market value" of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed; (c) "jewellery" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 2; (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C (b) "fair market value" of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed; (c) "jewellery" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 2; (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely

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.

Section 53A of the transfer of property Act is not acceptable as the land as existing has changed in character, tenor and nature in the hands of developer and appellant himself cannot cancel the JDA without the concurrence of developer. c. Contract exists for a consideration. The Assessing Officer observed that the appellant/assessee had agreed to transfer/sell

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].

50C in respect of the said transaction of sale of the Factory Building of the dissolved Firm. 7. The ld. AR argued vehemently that the ld. PCIT does not have Jurisdiction to invoke revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act as the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue which are the twin

THIDUVIL BALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NONCORP, WARD 4(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.3, New No. 4, V. Income-Tax, 5Th Street, 4Th Cross, Central Circle -2(2), Seetharam Nagar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 112. [Pan: Afmpb-5184-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023

50C of the Act, if difference between guideline value and consideration paid for purchase of property is less than the tolerance band, then said difference cannot be considered as deemed consideration in the hands of the seller and consequently the provisions of section :-9-: ITA. No:963/Chny/2022 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act cannot be invoked in the hands

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C.\n13) The combined value of the land and the Hotel building with\nthe facilities is well worth the Rs.365.12 Crores and the total tangible\nassets Rs.470.11 Crores as taken by the Appellant and the value of\nintangible assets at Rs.26 Crores as given by Registered valuers.\nNeither the AO or the CIT(A) have not given any reason

MATHAIYAN SARAVANAKUMAR ,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM , SALEM TAMILNADU

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.243/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Mathaiyan Saravanakumar Acit #1/92, Kailash Nagar 4Th Cross बनाम Circle-2(1) Brinvadan Road, Fairlands Salem. / Vs. Salem-636 016. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Avdps-4253-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Fca) -Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-04-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

TDS. However, the work order as well as work bill did not contain exact location of land. The assessee would not have spent such a huge amount on developing the land to be acquired by the Government. The work order and work bill relate to work contract executed at some other place and not pertaining to the land sold. Therefore