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

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

capital gains arising on account of these shares is determined at Rs.9,74,47,542/- for this Assessment Year. Applying the proviso to Section 112

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

capital gains arising on account of these shares is determined at Rs.9,74,47,542/- for this Assessment Year. Applying the proviso to Section 112

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

gains are to be derived from the business of\ndeveloping SEZ. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention to the\nletter of approval issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated\n25.04.2008, copy of which was placed at Pages 106-109 of the paper-\nbook and contended that the assessee was a 'co-developer' and therefore\nit qualified

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

gains are to be derived from the business of\ndeveloping SEZ. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention to the\nletter of approval issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated\n25.04.2008, copy of which was placed at Pages 106-109 of the paper-\nbook and contended that the assessee was a 'co-developer' and therefore\nit qualified

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

M V SUBRAMANIAN FAMILY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1087/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 M/S. M V Subramanian Family The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Non-Corporate Ward 1(1), 10, Valliammai Achi Road, Vs. Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. Pan: Aaetm 9151C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ashwin, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025

gains as well as from other sources. The trust submitted its income tax return for the pertinent assessment year on 18.11.2021, reporting an income of Rs.82,21,860/-. An intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 13.10.2022, which applied a surcharge of 37% on dividend income rather than

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AKZPP-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. ARs " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AKZPP-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. ARs " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member

VENKEDAPATHY VENUGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WE 2(1) COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains. 5.11 The absence of a corresponding clause in section 111A is legally significant and supports the principle that – when the legislature intended to deny rebate in respect of special income (as in section 112A), it has done so expressly. In contrast, the absence of any exclusion in section 111A or in section 87A must be construed in favour

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY RAJASEHAR, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 153C of the IT Act for each Assessment Year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different Assessment Years, which also vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. In view of all these findings, it is said that the appeals do not have any substance for seeking intervention as sought for by the appellant / Revenue

THAJUNNISSA BEGUM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON CORPORATE WARD -10(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 196/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mrs. Thajunnissa Begum, Income Tax Officer, No. 3, Prasanna Vinayagar V. Non Corporate Ward -10(4), Kovil St., Chennai. 235, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Adcpt-2186-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

112/-. The assessee had also claimed exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act for Rs. 50 lakhs, for amount invested in fixed deposit with nationalized bank. Thus, the assessee has computed taxable long term capital gains at Rs. Nil. 7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to file necessary evidences including justification for claim

KARTHICK CHILAKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

112.\n[PAN: AIPPC 4894H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nअपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant by\nप्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent by\nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing\nघोषणा की तारीख / Date of\nPronouncement\nThe Income Tax Officer,\nVs. International Taxation Ward-\n1(1),\nChennai.\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)\nShri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate\nShri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT\n18.02.2025\n28.02.2025\nआदेश / ORDER

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

Section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the addition is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee has filed the petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellant

ACIT, NCC-22,, TAMBARAM vs. SHRI KAMAL CHILAKA,, KANATHUR

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

112. PAN:AHJPK 6958K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the Revenue is arising

M/S. GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, TIRUPPUR

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

gains from business. The relevant part of\nthe order is reproduced herein below for ready reference:\n17. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The\nld. CIT-DR, Shri S. Palanikumar vehemently contended that the Hon'ble High Court\nof Bombay in the case of Serum Institute of India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra