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

income tax authorities held that the capital gains should be assessed as short term capital gains on the footing that the flat might have been used for business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY vs. M/S MANGAL & MANGAL, TRICHY

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 772/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal & Mangal, Income Tax, V. 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, Central Circle -2, Trichy – 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaifm-3378-B] Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2023

business of trading in gold jewellery, silvery ornaments, electronic and home appliances and metal wares. The assessee firm had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 21.09.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 126,97,84,860/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the claim of short term capital gains

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTL, TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

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

business income\nof the non-resident on the basis of the books of account goes out of the\npicture. Then it is only the provisions of sections 44AD, 44AE and 44AF\nwhich could be applied and the same obviously do not apply to the income\nof the non-resident companies. The hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing\nwith

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains by way of 'Business Income' instead of\n'Capital Gains'. The relevant grounds raised before the Ld. CIT(A) by Mr.\nTSRK

SINDYA SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CORP.CIRCLE-6[2], CHENNAI

The appeal stand 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.438/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sindya Securities & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.609, Lakshi Bavan, V Floor Corporate Circle 6(2) Sundaram Avenue, Mount Road Chennai Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalcs-3297-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan,(Ca) - Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

business income and not as capital gains as offered by the assessee. The assessment as business income would imply higher

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].

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal that no business was carried on by the firm in the assessment year 1982-83 and the provisions of section 189 cannot be invoked is unassailable. For the purpose of capital gains

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

business of purchase and sale of land, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 21.09.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 1,50,03,250/-. During the financial year relevant to assessment year 2014- 15, the appellant had claimed capital loss and set off against long term capital gain

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

income from house property and giving the necessary credit for TDS. Page - 3 - of 13 ITA No. 511 /Chny/2025 5.0 The PCIT- 4 Chennai premised that the mistake concerning treatment of short time capital gains as long time capital gains and business

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

income be classified under the heads "A" to "F". Part B refers to profits and gains of business or profession and Part E refers to the capital

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

income be classified under the heads "A" to "F". Part B refers to profits and gains of business or profession and Part E refers to the capital

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Income-tax Act,\n1961, and, accordingly, liable to capital gains tax ?\n2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the\nTribunal is right in law in holding that the cost of leasehold right is\ncapable of valuation and, as such, capital gains can be computed ?\"\n5. As already stated, the document dated 10th September

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)

gains: 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in coming to conclusion that income received from Chennai Metro Rail which is compensation for acquiring the property of the assessee as business income instead of capital

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)

gains: 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in coming to conclusion that income received from Chennai Metro Rail which is compensation for acquiring the property of the assessee as business income instead of capital

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)

gains: 3.1 The CIT(A) erred in coming to conclusion that income received from Chennai Metro Rail which is compensation for acquiring the property of the assessee as business income instead of capital

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

business or profession". The definition excludes certain categories of assets with which we are not concerned. Under s. 45 any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year, shall be chargeable to income

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

business, that reduction without special\nfeatures as were noted by the Supreme Court in Gangadhar's case [1972]\n86 ITR 19, would reflect impairment in assessee's capital asset, meaning\nan income-yielding apparatus which the assessee had with him prior to\nsuch reduction.\n• It cannot be doubted that, because of reduction of the share of the assessee

TIRUCHENGODU SENGODAGOUNDER,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1961/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Tiruchangodu Sengodagounder Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramasamy Khannaiyann, Income Tax, 67, Avarampalayam Road, K.R. Puram, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Afzpk7832C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Dharshan Bothra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 72 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

capital gains, ought to have held the same income, which was subsequently reclassified as business income under section 153A of the Income

PRICOL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCEL 2, COIMBATORE

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

income from business or profession. The PCIT noted that the capital gain declared u/s.50B of the Act was shown at ‘nil’. He noted