SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons recorded

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons recorded

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons recorded

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 22. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons recorded

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons recorded

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

Gains [As per Section 45(2) of the Act] Investment Investment directly inherited Particulars held by on merger Total assessee of ASL to assessee A) Long-term (LT) investment: % share in ownership interest(LT in nature) 1.59% 46.93% 48.52% Cost of acquisition 747.58 22.108.55 22,856.13 Indexed Cost of acquisition [upto

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains\narising from sale of impugned property in question in his hands, was\nabsent/no longer existing and therefore pleaded that the same addition of\nLTCG made in assessee's hands ought to be deleted.\n5. It was also brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that, pursuant to\nthe impugned assessment proceedings, the AO of the assessee

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

reassessment itself is invalid as there was no escapement of income. The capital gain had already been offered to tax in the hands

INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains. :-2-: ITA. No:2079/Chny/2025 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without remanding the same to the Assessing Officer, in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have restored the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts emanating from the records are that

VANDANA DAGA ,CHENNAI vs. PR. CIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vandana Daga, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv1469P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai 4, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 13 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Not Pressed & Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground Nos. 1 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Concerning Only Issue Questioning The Validity Of Jurisdiction Assumed By The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Of The Act.

reassessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the Assessing Officer to make necessary enquiries as per the discussions relating to the claims of excess cost of acquisition in respect of claim of long term capital gains

M/S APEX TRANSWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.932/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.Apex Transworld Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 38, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadca 7034 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.K. Ramesh Babu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

capital gain originally is not considered in this order in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) 1992 Supp 1 SCR 732 a, dated 17 September, 1992 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Therefore our answer

RAMANATHAN ADAIKALAVAN,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital gains. While doing so, it was concluded that the asset sold was depreciable asset on which depreciation was claimed in earlier years. It is the case of the assessee that the reassessment

M/S. R.K. INVESTMENTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Capital Gains. During the course of reassessment proceedings, various details were called from the assessee in this regard which were

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

reassessment based on insufficient information and lacked valid "reasons to believe" 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short. 4. Failure to consider evidence: The appellant asserts that the AO disregarded crucial evidence regarding the acquisition and improvement costs of a property purchased

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

reassessment based on insufficient information and lacked valid "reasons to believe" 3. Violation of Natural Justice: The appellant was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, as the notice to file a reply was unreasonably short. 4. Failure to consider evidence: The appellant asserts that the AO disregarded crucial evidence regarding the acquisition and improvement costs of a property purchased

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

gains were not reflected either in regular return of income nor in return of income filed during reassessment proceedings. This is despite the fact that the case was reopened to examine the issue of capital

EDWIN SELVARAJ SUNDRARAJ,SALEM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(4), SALEM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 783/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains from :-5-: ITA. No:783 /Chny/2022 transfer of property. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 4. Appellate findings: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, reassessment

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

capital gain. Ground No.8 is related to interest u/s 234A/B/C. Ground No.9 is related to penalty levied. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is disposed of in the subsequent paragraphs. 6.2 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. Relevant portion of submission is reproduced below: 3. The following case laws are relied upon where in it has been held