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

111 taxmann.com 338 (Mumbai - Trib.) - CIT v. M/s. Wheels India Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 513 (Madras) (AY 2012- 13) - Brakes India Limited vs. DCIT [2017] 56 ITR(T) 341 (Chennai -Trib.)” 6.4 In light of the above therefore, we hold that the lower authorities were not justified in curtailing the deduction u/s 35(2AB) in the pre- amended pre period

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

gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

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

gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

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

gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

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

gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143 of the Act. Further, as noted above, the CIT(A) has examined the merits of the matter and after taking note of the facts granted relief to the assessee to the extent indicated therein. Thus, for the above reasons, we find that the revenue has not made out any case for interference of the order passed

G.NARENDAR CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Section 147 of the Act, was not satisfied. 9. Arguing on the merits of the case, ld. Authorised Representative submitted that purchase of shares of M/s. Reward Agencies P. Ltd were proved through share certificates which reflected transfer of these shares from M/s. Sanklap Vincom (P) Ltd to the assessees. According to him, amalgamation of M/s. Reward Agencies

MRS.SHANTHAMANI (REPRESENTING LATE MR.M.RAMALINGAM),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shanthamani, The Income-Tax Officer, (Representing Late Mr. M. V. Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Ramalingam) Coimbatore. 111, Oor Gounder Thottam, Anna Nagar, Velappanaickenpalayam, Chinnavedampatti Po, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Anlpr-8229-C]

111, Oor Gounder Thottam, Anna Nagar, Velappanaickenpalayam, Chinnavedampatti PO, Coimbatore – 641 006. [PAN: ANLPR-8229-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. R. Meena, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

111 TTJ Delhi 346. 5.3 The Ld. DR made further submissions that the assessee’s investment manager M/s.TVS Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had published the FAQs and note on taxation of income earned by the beneficiaries from the TSGF. In the said document in page no.11 to 15 of paper book, it had categorized

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

111 TTJ Delhi 346. 5.3 The Ld. DR made further submissions that the assessee’s investment manager M/s.TVS Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had published the FAQs and note on taxation of income earned by the beneficiaries from the TSGF. In the said document in page no.11 to 15 of paper book, it had categorized

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

111 TTJ Delhi 346. 5.3 The Ld. DR made further submissions that the assessee’s investment manager M/s.TVS Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had published the FAQs and note on taxation of income earned by the beneficiaries from the TSGF. In the said document in page no.11 to 15 of paper book, it had categorized

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

111 TTJ Delhi 346. 5.3 The Ld. DR made further submissions that the assessee’s investment manager M/s.TVS Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had published the FAQs and note on taxation of income earned by the beneficiaries from the TSGF. In the said document in page no.11 to 15 of paper book, it had categorized

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

111 TTJ Delhi 346. 5.3 The Ld. DR made further submissions that the assessee’s investment manager M/s.TVS Capital Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act had published the FAQs and note on taxation of income earned by the beneficiaries from the TSGF. In the said document in page no.11 to 15 of paper book, it had categorized

VINODHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

Section 2(14) of the Act for reckoning such lands as exempted category of agricultural lands. 9. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reference to the notification by the Assessing Officer and blindly followed in the appellate proceedings was wholly unjustified as well proved the non application of mind on their mind and ought to have appreciated that

ARAVIND MODI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S.Jayaraman

capital gain’ when the long term gain is subjected to a ‘nil’ or nominal rate of tax. The advantage for manipulative taxpayer is that he can launder such sale receipts through payment of no tax.” SEBI has barred about 250 such entities. SEBI has found that price of KAFL was rigged by way of manipulation made by the promoters/brokers/operators. SEBI

ITO, NCW - 1 (5), CHENNAI vs. MS. S. BALASARASWATHI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, the land impugned, is within 6 km s from the outer limit of Tambaram Municipality and squarely falls under the definition of capital asset and the sale of this land results in taxable capital gain and cannot be claimed as exempt as agricultural in nature. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

111 clearly indicated that escrow amount would be released by escrow agent only if both seller and purchaser agreed and signed. According to the ld. Authorised Representative, the amount placed in the escrow account had not crystallized as income during the relevant previous year and hence could not be considering for computing the capital gains for the impugned assessment year

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Capital Gains claimed by the assessee "2,04,45,542/-. 8.3 We have considered the facts and submissions made by the ld. Authorised Representative and Departmental Representative, were similar issue was adjudicated by us for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.1181/Mds/2014 at para 5.18, we partly allow the ground of the assessee. 8.4. The last ground raised

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Capital Gains claimed by the assessee "2,04,45,542/-. 8.3 We have considered the facts and submissions made by the ld. Authorised Representative and Departmental Representative, were similar issue was adjudicated by us for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.1181/Mds/2014 at para 5.18, we partly allow the ground of the assessee. 8.4. The last ground raised