ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

purchase and sales of shares. The Ld.AR drew our attention to Page No.26 of the Paper Book, which is a copy of the consolidated balance sheet of the assessee to show that the investments in the shares are separately shown and the Derivatives business is separately shown under the head Current Assets, Loans and Advances. He, further, drew our attention

NIRMALA KUMARI CHORDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

bogus long term capital gains on sale of its shares. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that Shri. Prakash Kumar Jojodia had admitted floating a number of companies through which transactions in cash, cheques and RTGS credits were carried out and he had also offered a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as income earned for giving accommodation entries to various parties

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

long term capital gains arising on sale of said shares. The AO observed that the above sequence of events clearly reveals that assessee has manipulated entire sequence of events related to alleged purchase of aforesaid shares to introduce unaccounted income as an exempt income. The AO called for information u/s.133(6) of the Act from Bombay Stock Exchange (in short

NARENDRA DEVAKINANDAN HARLALKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1089/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

bogus long term capital gains/ short term capital gains to facilitate tax evasion. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the :-4-: ITA. No:1089/Chny/2019 Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has purchased

PRAMILA PATEL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1827/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pramila Patel, No.27, Gnt Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(3) Puzhal, Chennai. Chennai 600 066. [Pan Aeipp 1044H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gains claimed by the assessee is bogus. Name of the Date of sale Sale price Date of Purchase

NEETA BOTHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2507 & 2508/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Neeta Bothra, 1/1, General Patters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(3) Chennai- 600 002. Chennai-6. Pan: Aaipb 0445J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus long term capital gain, but fact remains that in all those cases considered by Hon’ble High Courts and decided in favour of revenue, the fact was that purchase

NEETA BOTHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2507 & 2508/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Neeta Bothra, 1/1, General Patters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(3) Chennai- 600 002. Chennai-6. Pan: Aaipb 0445J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus long term capital gain, but fact remains that in all those cases considered by Hon’ble High Courts and decided in favour of revenue, the fact was that purchase

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus long term capital gain and claimed exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.38 crores during the assessment year 2014-15 by transfer of another illiquid stock of M/s. Risa International Ltd. (xiii) Shri Sohanraj Praveen Kumar had explained that he had received the information about the future increase in the value of share of M/s. Risa International

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

bogus and fictitious\ntrail. The Ld AO also observed that the sale of fine dining division of\nOCPL to CCMPL included a significantly valued property at 71 cathedral\nroad in Chennai, which was again sold by OCPL to assessee's wife\nMs.Badrunissa at a much lower value. The Ld.AO concluded that the\nentire share transfer transaction was built to avoid

SHRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR HIRAWAT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 900/Mds/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Shri. Rajendra Kumar Hirawat, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10, Monteith Lane, Income Tax, Egmore, Non Corporate Circle -9(1), Chennai 600 008. Chennai. [Pan Aaaph 6105P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act arose on account of sale of equity shares of M/s. Luminairire Technologies Ltd. It appears that assessee could not produce any evidence as to ITA No.900/Mds/2018. :- 5 -: how it identified equity shares of M/s.Pardhi Properties Ltd., for making an off market purchase. Assessee received shares

SHRI. VINAY KUMAR HIRAWAT,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9 (1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 901/Mds/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Shri. Vinay Kumar Hirawat, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10, Monteith Lane, Income Tax, Egmore, Non Corporate Circle -9(1), Chennai 600 008. Chennai. [Pan Aaaph 6106Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act arose ITA No.901/Mds/2018. :- 5 -: on account of sale of equity shares of M/s. Luminairire Technologies Ltd. It appears that assessee could not produce any evidence as to how it identified equity shares of M/s.Pardhi Properties Ltd., for making an off market purchase. Assessee received shares

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

long term capital base for future operations of the company. So, the main promoters holding nearly 89% of the share capital of TVSF&S i.e. TVS Investments Ltd. and TVSM, the assessee company agreed to buy the shares in accordance. with the listing agreement regulations mainly and with the sole intention of safeguarding the name TVS, protection

ARAVIND MODI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman

bogus / non-genuine long term capital gain from the transactions of alleged purchase and sale of shares of Kailash Auto

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), COIMBATORE

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2022 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri D. Ramagopal Acit बनाम C/O.Mr. G.V. Jhabakh (Fca) Central Circle-1 157, P.M Swamy Colony, Coimbatore. / Vs. 5Th Street, Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akgpr-3621-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Jhabakh(Ca)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 18-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain without considering the expenses involved to get the title. 2. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal erred in treating cash deposits into bank account as un-explained income. 3. The assessing officer and the C.I.T. appeal also not considered the agriculture income and treating the income at nil without considering the agriculture

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

purchase agreement on 17-05- 2011 with M/s Par Pharmaceuticals LLC, a Delware Corporation for sale of shares. The assessee admitted sale consideration of his share and arrived at long term capital gains of Rs. 54,01,85,018. The assessee claimed cost of acquisition and transaction expenses. The ld. AO noticed that the assessee set off Short term capital

VIDYA REDDY ,CHENNAI vs. ITO INL. TAXATION WARD 1(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2016/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

purchase of shares and bank statement reflecting the payments made etc. Meanwhile, the A.O received certain details based on the country wide investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing of Kolkata, which revealed that there was an organized racket of generating bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

bogus and fictitious trail. The Ld AO also observed that the sale of fine dining division of OCPL to CCMPL included a significantly valued property at 71 cathedral road in Chennai, which was again sold by OCPL to assessee’s wife Ms.Badrunissa at a much lower value. The Ld.AO concluded that the entire share transfer transaction was built to avoid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

bogus and fictitious trail. The Ld AO also observed that the sale of fine dining division of OCPL to CCMPL included a significantly valued property at 71 cathedral road in Chennai, which was again sold by OCPL to assessee’s wife Ms.Badrunissa at a much lower value. The Ld.AO concluded that the entire share transfer transaction was built to avoid