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 declared u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is completely erred in assuming his jurisdiction and revised assessment order u/s. 263

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 declared u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is completely erred in assuming his jurisdiction and revised assessment order u/s. 263

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 declared u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is completely :-22-: ITA. No:422/Chny/2022 erred in assuming his jurisdiction and revised assessment order u/s. 263

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 declared u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is completely :-22-: ITA. No:433/Chny/2022 erred in assuming his jurisdiction and revised assessment order u/s. 263

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 declared u/s. 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is completely erred in assuming his jurisdiction and revised assessment order u/s. 263

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

u/s 54EC of the Act. As against the capital gain admitted in the return of income amounting to Rs.39,17,794, the AO adopted the sale consideration as per section SOC of the Act amounting to Rs.2,63,04,214 and from there, recomputed the LTCG at Rs.1,65,99,279 and added the same to the income returned. This

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

u/s 143(3) rws 263 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) in the order referred to above has confirmed the addition of capital gain on sale at Rs.67.50crores. The AO imposed penalty on this quantum i.e. 67.50 crores. The software division was transferred for a consideration of Rs.350 crores. This consideration was apportioned as follows: Towards Current Assets

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]

capital gains. While passing the impugned order, the Ld PCIT placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex court to support his arguments on earnings from business or income from house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gains. Therefore, according to the ld.AR, the Assessing Officer after enquiring and verification of the issue in question has accepted the claim of assessee after application of mind, cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and therefore, ld.PCIT does not have :-12-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 jurisdiction of exercising revision u/s. 263

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

revision as per the agreed terms. (xiv) The authorized operations shall be carried out in terms of the parameters laid down in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 the rules and the orders made there-under and in accordance with the proposal approved therein.” 16. It is noted that, later on, the Assistant Development Commissioner, vide letter dated 06.07.2010, placed

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-4,, CHENNAI

revised is\nerroneous; and\n(ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\nIf any one of the conditions as mentioned above is absent (i.e., if\nthe order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial\nto the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the\nrevenue), recourse cannot

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, 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.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

u/s. 263 of the Act. The Ld. DR further submitted that, the entire argument of the assessee in light of IND-AS standards is that entries passed in the books of accounts is notional entries, but fact remains that gain on extinguishment of liability and share premium is not a notional entries. He further submitted that, under the provisions

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\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

revised return on 17.04.2013 showing total\nincome at Rs.NIL but claiming deduction u/s.80-IAB of the Act, amounting\nto Rs.11,08,19,915/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny\nand notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, which were complied with\nby the assessee. At the onset, the AO noted that the assessee didn't file

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

capital gains. The same was duly responded to by the assessee. Accordingly, a view was taken in the assessment order which was one of the possible views and hence, this fact do not justify invocation of impugned revision u/s 263

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

revision u/s.263 would run from order u/s.143(3) dated 23/12/2019 and hence the present revisionary proceedings initiated on 29/02/2024 is beyond limitation period. Without prejudice to above grounds on jurisdiction, even on merits 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the profit arising on assets sold to reconstruction companies were correctly offered

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

revision u/s.263 would run from order u/s.143(3) dated 23/12/2019 and hence the present revisionary proceedings initiated on 29/02/2024 is beyond limitation period. Without prejudice to above grounds on jurisdiction, even on merits 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the profit arising on assets sold to reconstruction companies were correctly offered

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. Accordingly, the reasons were recorded and the case was reopened wherein various details were called from the assessee in this regard during the course of re-assessment proceedings. 3.2 The assessee, vide its reply dated 10-03-2022, inter-alia, submitted that the land remained agricultural land throughout the period of holding which was evident from revenue records

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

revise the income tax assessment order passed\non 12.04.2021 and withdrawing the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the\nfollowing grounds:\n(a) that the assessee Trust is engaged in the activity of running a petrol bunk\nfrom where it earned more than 80% of its income;\n(b) that the activity is not undertaken in the course