UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

26 of the paper book and\nsubmits that Id. CIT(A) accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of\nthe Act in the appellate order for the AY 2012-13 in assessee's case and\nthe Id. PCIT also accepted the deduction under section 10(38) of the Act\nconsidering remand report of the Assessing Officer. He also drew

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

10,400/-. Thus, the assessee had claimed total capital loss from exchange of lands with lands from another person at Rs. 83,06,380/- and claimed set off against long term capital gains. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee argued that when layout was :-4-: ITA. No:1596/Chny/2019 formed with various survey nos. lands belongs to other persons including

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].

26. Further, we also agree with the contention of the ld. DR with reference to sub-section (4) of section 45 of the Act which creates a deeming fiction by treating with distribution of capital assets on dissolution of a firm among the erstwhile partners and it is not a proposition that capital gains arising out of transfer

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

10. ….In our view, section 195(2) is based on the "principle of proportionality". The said sub-section gets attracted only in cases where the payment made is a composite payment in which a certain proportion of payment has an element of "income" chargeable to tax in India. It is in this context that the Supreme Court stated

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

gains are to be derived from the business of developing SEZ. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention to the letter of approval issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 25.04.2008, copy of which was placed at Pages 106-109 of the paper- book and contended that the assessee was a ‘co-developer’ and therefore it qualified

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

26,714/- Disallowance of cost of construction Rs.12,96,709/- - Denial of deduction U/s.54F Rs.45,15,560/- - :-3-: ITA. No:1490/Chny/2023 Later, the Ld.PCIT, Coimbatore – 1, invoking the jurisdiction of revisional powers of Section 263 of the Act, considered the order of assessment passed by AO, U/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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

section 153A r.w.s 153C of the Income Tax Act was re-opened under the same pretext under which the assessment order is subjected to revision and that the learned AO after duly examining the documentary evidence filed by the assessed has considered the transaction in shares as genuine in nature. 6. The learned Principal Commissioner Of Income tax ought

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

26,43,225/-. Details of the case are mentioned in the following paras: :-7-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2022 1. During the course of suvey proceedings by the department on various M/S Onkar Supply Pvt Ltd, it was found that it was involved in providing accommodation entry in the form of bogus long term capital gains in connivance with entry operators

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

10) TMI 2120 – ITAT Mumbai In view of the above arguments, the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition made on account of capital gains. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR supported the orders of the AO and that

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

10 to page 15 of the appellate order / impugned order. 18. With regard to the third addition of unexplained investment / expenditure, the same was also deleted by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in view of the same being :-9-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 assessed to tax under regular assessment proceedings vide para No.8.0 of the appellate

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

10 to page 15 of the appellate order / impugned order. 18. With regard to the third addition of unexplained investment / expenditure, the same was also deleted by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in view of the same being :-9-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 assessed to tax under regular assessment proceedings vide para No.8.0 of the appellate

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

10 lakhs, the land in question falls squarely within the ambit of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act as “urban agricultural land” and, therefore, constitutes a capital asset exigible to capital gains tax. 21. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and examined the written submission and paper book placed on record

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

26,29,120/- paid in accordance with the payment\nterms...\nat\n2. Schedule-B: All that place & parcel of land bearing Plot no.\nmeasuring sq.ft. of land area, along with premiere villa/deluxe\nvilla/luxury villa/deluxe admeasuring a built up area of 2402 sq.\nComprised in survey numbers...\n3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER:\nThe Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its\nrights under this

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

26,29,120/- paid in accordance with the payment\nterms...\n2. Schedule-B: All that place & parcel of land bearing Plot no.\nmeasuring .... sq.ft. of land area, along with premiere villa/deluxe\nvilla/luxury villa/deluxe admeasuring a built up area of 2402 sq.\nComprised in survey numbers...\n3: ASSIGNMENT/ TRANSFER:\nThe Lessee shell be entitled to assign/mortgage/transfer his/her/its\nrights under this Lease

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

capital gain in the hands of the assessee by giving indexed cost by holding that the lands were not an agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) further gone to hold that there were no agricultural activities shown by the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 23. Before us, the ld. AR placed on record agreement of sale