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

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gains was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of revision passed by the CIT u/s 263

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gains was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of revision passed by the CIT u/s 263

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gains was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of revision passed by the CIT u/s 263

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Gains was wrong, incorrect, unjustified, erroneous and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of revision passed by the CIT u/s 263

M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

revision is required by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, it is prayed that further proceedings on account / of the above Notice dated 24.10.2007 may kindly be dropped.” :- 14 -: 4.4 Before we delve on the revisionary order of learned CIT , dated 05.02.2008 passed 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

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains on acquisition of land by NHAI, of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards interest payment as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act and of Rs. 90,000/- towards disallowance u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee took additional grounds challenging the legal

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

P. ANANTHRAM,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COMBATORE MAIN BUILDING, 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.155/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 P. Ananth Ram, The Asst. Commissioner Of 36, West Venkataswamy Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.S. Puram, Non Corporate Circle-2, Coimbtore – 641 002. Coimbatore. [Pan: Anxpa-6262-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961” 5. Accordingly, the PCIT noted in his revision order that the assessee has sold the shares in two lots, one being shares received prior to rights issue and the second one being shares received in rights issue. Therefore, according to him for claiming deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, the 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]

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