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

section 10(38) of the Act is available to taxpayers to claim\nexemption from gain on sale of long term capital

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

section 10(38) of the Act is available to taxpayers to claim\nexemption from gain on sale of long term capital

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

section 10(38) of the Act is available to taxpayers to claim\nexemption from gain on sale of long term capital

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

38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained to sale of shares of M/s. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. merged with M/s. Bakra Prathisthan Ltd. 19. M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. has been reported as suspected shell company in the Corporate Affairs in its letter in 331 :-12-: ITA. No:445/Chny/2022 companies

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

38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained to sale of shares of M/s. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. merged with M/s. Bakra Prathisthan Ltd. 19. M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. has been reported as suspected shell company in the Corporate Affairs in its letter in 331 :-12-: ITA. No:421/Chny/2022 companies

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

38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained to sale of shares of M/s. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. merged with M/s. Bakra Prathisthan Ltd. 19. M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. has been reported as suspected shell company in the Corporate Affairs in its letter in 331 :-12-: ITA. No:422/Chny/2022 companies

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

38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained to sale of shares of M/s. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. merged with M/s. Bakra Prathisthan Ltd. 20. M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. has been reported as suspected shell company in the Corporate Affairs in its letter in 331 companies identified by the Ministry

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

38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained to sale of shares of M/s. Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. merged with M/s. Bakra Prathisthan Ltd. 19. M/s Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. has been reported as suspected shell company in the Corporate Affairs in its letter in 331 companies identified by the Ministry

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

capital gains. For the purpose of LTCG, the Assessing Officer adopted guideline value under section 50C of the Act as deemed sale consideration as against sale deed value and accordingly, the difference of ₹.2,61,05,992/- was brought to tax. The assessee has claimed additional cost of purchase of property for ₹.2,10,76,000/-. However, the assessee could

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

38 equity shares in the second company for 10 equity shares in the first company. The assessee accepted the said offer and received 55,100 shares of the second company in exchange of the aforesaid holding of 14,500 shares in the first company. The face value of the shares of the second Company was Rs. 10/- per share

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

gains would be taken to be year of ‘sale’ as provided in section 45(2). This 34 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 is important more so as the rights in land remain with the land owner till they are sold to the prospective buyers. The words sale or otherwise transferred’ are mutually exclusive situations. When the same agreement provides for sale of land

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

10,38,85,171 B = a + b - c Net worth C). Capital gains on slum sale u/s C = A - b 50B of IT Act 90,47,68,333 9.15 The above computation of capital gains is also supported by Form 3CEA issued by Chartered Accountant, which is available at Page 2 of Paper Book-III. It is noticed that

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

10,06,350/-. Subsequently, the\nreturn of income was revised on 15.03.2019 declaring the total income at\n₹.9,98,850/-. On the basis of information collected during the course of\nassessment proceedings in the case of CRCL, where the assessee is a\npartner, the Assessing Office reopened the assessment for AY 2017-18\nunder section

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

capital gains claimed by it to be earned on sale and purchase of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. by invoking provisions of Section 10(38

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

10 -:\nITA No.2986/Chny/2025\nManikandan\nassessable entity apart from its partners. This is clear from Sections 45(1),\n(3) and (4), of the Income Tax Act which reads as under:\n\"45. [(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

10(38) on the long term capital gains on sale of shares. 15.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that all the conditions required for claiming exemption uIsl0(38) had been met by the appellant. 16.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding , the addition made by the assessing officer had made the addition based

KANCHAN SINGHVI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2553/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Kanchan Singhvi, The Income Tax Officer, No. 156, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [Pan: Abhps2435F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 20.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15.The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Of ₹.18,69,390/-

10(38) of the Act, shares sold in recognized stock exchange by paying STT which give rise to long term capital gains are exempt from capital gains tax under the Act. However, since the assessee has not claimed in her return filed under section

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

10, 1970 effected the transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and, accordingly, liable to capital gains tax? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the cost of lease hold right is capable of valuation