KRISHNAN SARAVANAN,ODDANCHATRAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, MADURAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

TDS provisions under Chapter XVII-B are not applicable in respect of those payments. 19. The Learned NFASC erred in disallowing 30% of freight charges incurred by the appellant without exactly stating as to which provisions under XVII-B is applicable so as to fasten a liability on the appellant to deduct tax at source in respect of such freight

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 applicable as per law. 4. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee and according to A.O., except MOU, no other reliable document was C.O. No.98/Chny/2019 submitted in support of his claim. Further, the MOU between the parties dated 28.11.2006 is an unregistered and there is no witness signature on the document. Although

V.KAMALAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, KUMBAKONAM

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

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 54F of the Act and thereby computed the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee at Rs.3,06,058/- and also made addition of Rs.5,81,200/- as unexplained investment. 4. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld.AO that the land belonging to the assessee was acquired by the Government, wherein she received compensation

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)

54F and 194A of the Act, it should be so considered for application of Sec. 56(2)(vii) as well. As held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd 198 ITR 297, it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence divorced from the context of a question raised

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)

54F and 194A of the Act, it should be so considered for application of Sec. 56(2)(vii) as well. As held by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd 198 ITR 297, it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence divorced from the context of a question raised

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

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

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

TDS. Hence, the entire compensation/consideration for compulsory acquisition of land and building is treated as long term capital gains in the hands of the assessee.” Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. Before CIT(A) the first issue raised was that the land compulsorily acquired by State Government was held by his brother :- 4 -: and sister jointly

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

TDS u/s. 195 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment had also observed that the assessee has incurred various expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,13,11,528/-, which are in the nature of reimbursement of expenses. :-4-: ITA. No: 173/Chny/2023 4. The case has been subsequently taken up for revision proceedings by the PCIT, Chennai