ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

addition or disallowance in respect of the claim u/s. 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as 54F and assessed the income at the same figure as determined in the original scrutiny assessment. This clearly determined in the original scrutiny assessment. This clearly determined in the original scrutiny

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Amit Jain, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Amit S. Fragrances, Income Tax, 37, Nms Compound, Circle-1, Erode – 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Afipj 5671F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri L.Shibi, C.S ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Two Appeals Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, In Ita No.444/16-17 & 90/17-18 Dated 01.03.2018 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Being Disposed Together, For Convenience Sake.

addition to it, out of profit of sale on shares of Rs.20,21,695/-, the assessee adjusted short term capital loss of Rs.3,93,622/- and admitted Rs.16,28,073/- as income from capital gains

SHRI. AMIT JAIN PROP M/S AMIT S FRAGRANCES,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1816 & 1817/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri Amit Jain, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Amit S. Fragrances, Income Tax, 37, Nms Compound, Circle-1, Erode – 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Afipj 5671F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri L.Shibi, C.S ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Two Appeals Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore, In Ita No.444/16-17 & 90/17-18 Dated 01.03.2018 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16, Respectively. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Being Disposed Together, For Convenience Sake.

addition to it, out of profit of sale on shares of Rs.20,21,695/-, the assessee adjusted short term capital loss of Rs.3,93,622/- and admitted Rs.16,28,073/- as income from capital gains

BHARATHAN ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the assessing officer on account of Long term capital gains

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

capital gains account to the extent quantified in the assessment order would not negate the claim for tax exemption as per the computation forming part of the return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration. 5. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in para 5.1 of the impugned order in this regard without assigning proper

INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI ARUN GUPTA,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

Income-tax Act, 1961 :-3-: ITA. No:844 /Chny/2020 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by paying a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the builder as advance money for purchase of property and also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,69,61,612/- in a capital gain deposit account scheme. The assessee had also claimed deduction u/s. 54EC

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

addition to the capital gains already admitted in the return of income. In addition to the above, the AO had disallowed

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.

income of the assessee at ₹.511,60,00,657/- after making addition of long term capital gains of ₹.511,02,41,400/- and other

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].

capital gains arising out of the sale of land was paid by the firm M/s. Baliga Lighting Company in the Assessment Year 2017-18 and drew our attention to the acknowledgement of return of income and computation of total income of M/s. Baliga Lighting Company at Page No. 203 and 201 of the Additional

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

capital gains arising from the windmill division by way of slump sale u/s 50B of the Act as declared by the assessee in their return of income and accordingly delete the addition

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

capital gains." In other words, he was proceeding with the scope of the assessment and was not really addressing himself as to the scope of exercising jurisdiction under Chapter XIV-B and section 158BA. The Tribunal, on analysis of the materials placed before it, has recorded the following finding : "In the case in hand admittedly undisclosed 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

capital gains." In other words, he was proceeding with the scope of the assessment and was not really addressing himself as to the scope of exercising jurisdiction under Chapter XIV-B and section 158BA. The Tribunal, on analysis of the materials placed before it, has recorded the following finding : "In the case in hand admittedly undisclosed income

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

V.KALPAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3034/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. V. Kalpagam, The Income Tax Officer, No.2, Door No. 9, Raja V. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Sadhan, Gajapathy Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. [Pan: Ahupk-0879-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023

addition of alleged short term capital gains and long term capital gains and thus render Justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has e- filed her return of income