MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

11 of 21 which falls in Chapter VI titled “Computation of Business Income”. The relevant extracts from Section 42 are as follows: Special provision for deductions in the case of business for prospecting, etc., for mineral oil. 42. [(1)] For the purpose of computing the profits or gains of any business consisting of the prospecting for or extraction or production

ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

5. Ld. Dr. DR vehemently argued that Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in allowing the claim of exemption in respect of capital gains claimed by the assessee u/s. 11(1A) of the Act more particularly when this Co-ordinate Bench in its earlier order dated 30.06.2016, wherein the impugned matter was set aside to the file

ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

5. Ld. Dr. DR vehemently argued that Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in allowing the claim of exemption in respect of capital gains claimed by the assessee u/s. 11(1A) of the Act more particularly when this Co-ordinate Bench in its earlier order dated 30.06.2016, wherein the impugned matter was set aside to the file

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

5 of the questionnaire issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied\nthat no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of\nquestion No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No.\n12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated\nthat

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KANNAN SANTHANAM, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.636/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Kannan Santhanam, Income Tax, V. 401-A Laures 59-60, Non Corporate Circle 16, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Aahps 1094 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5 I.T.A. No.636/Mds/16 representative, the capital gain would not remain with the assessee for making deposit in Capital Gains Account. 6. Referring to the judgment of Apex Court in Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 376 ITR 596, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that what is required to be deposited in the Capital Gains Account is unutilised

INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD-10(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI ARUN GUPTA,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 844/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Income-Tax Officer, Shri. Arun Gupta, Non-Corporate Ward -10(6), V. No. 3B, Block, Lloyds Colony, Chennai – 34. Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014. [Pan: Agrpa-8340-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji Advocate & Mrs. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022

5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has filed a detailed written submission on the issue and contended that the assessee has satisfied conditions prescribed u/s. 54 of the Act, including depositing unutilized amount of capital gain into capital gain deposit account

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

5 of the questionnaire issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied that no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of question No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No. 12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated that

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

section 50C of the Act and adopted the guideline value of the property as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computing capital gains. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 6. The next ground raised by the assessee

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].

5) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 159. 11. He argued that even as per section 45(4) r.w.s 189, the capital gains

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

Section 2(47), the third deals with the capital loss arising on transfer of shares. There is no dispute on whether the exchange undertaken by the assessee falls under the purview of transfer which is also in accordance with the first two decisions relied on by the assessee. The third is the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court

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.

5,500 per sq. ft. was worked out at ₹.851,70,69,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the capital gains on the deemed sale of 60% of the total area at ₹.511,02,41,400/- and added the same to the total income under the head “long term capital gains”. 6 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 6.1 After considering the detailed written

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

section 54F of the Act, the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the the Act, the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the the Act, the claim of exemption u/s.54F of the Act in respect of the property sold during the financial year 2013 property sold during the financial year

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

5 of the questionnaire issued under\nsection 142(1) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee replied\nthat no assets acquired during the year under consideration in respect of\nquestion No. 7 as details of capital assets acquired. Against question No.\n12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated\nthat

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

capital gains and in the case of self-generated good will it is not possible to determine the same. The third reason for holding that the good will generated in a newly commenced business cannot be described as an 'asset' within the terms of section 45 of the Act was that it is impossible to determine its cost of acquisition

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

11 :: machinery'. It was pointed out that, the 'energy saving devices' were specifically mentioned at Sl. No. III(8)(ix), 'renewable energy devices' were mentioned at Sl. No. III (8)(xiii) and 'pollution control devices' were mentioned at Sl. No. III(3)(vii) & (ix). We are therefore in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that these fixed assets were

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAMIL NADU CRICKET ASSOCIATION, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016 & C.O. Nos.158 & 159/Mds/2016 (In Ita Nos.2556 & 2557/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

gains chargeable being less than the allowance, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation for the following

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(47) of the Act. It is also\nan admitted fact that the erstwhile partners have not retired and they\ncontinued to be the partners along with the income partners. The assessee\nhas relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the\ncase of CIT v. P.N. Panjawani (supra), wherein, the Hon'ble High