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 arising from the said transaction were rightly taxed. This\ndecision has been cited without comment by Kanga and Palkhivala in\ntheir commentary on the Law of Income-tax (7th Edition) at page 550\nand no contrary case has been cited in the said text book or has been\nbrought to our attention. It is true that the decision

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

gains arising from the said transaction were rightly taxed. This\ndecision has been cited without comment by Kanga and Palkhivala in\ntheir commentary on the Law of Income-tax (7th Edition) at page 550\nand no contrary case has been cited in the said text book or has been\nbrought to our attention. It is true that the decision

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

section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect of penny stocks; disregarding the direct evidences placed on record and furnished by the assessee in the form of brokers contract notes for purchases and sales of the ‘said shares’ of M/s. Shukun Constructions Ltd., copies of the physical share certificates and her D-MAT account statement

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gains is invested before the deadline of 8/2/2019 to fulfil the conditions u/s.54. 3.2 The contentions of the assessee have been considered. In the return of income filed for AY 2016-17, assessee has claimed sale of property for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and claimed deduction u/s.54 for investing in capital accounts scheme. Notice u/s. 133

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

section 14 of the Act. 10. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the interest payment of Rs.16,24,380/- pertained to income from derivatives. 11.The CIT (Appeals) ought to have seen that only the surplus funds of the Appellant have been used for the purpose of the investment. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that Ground Nos.1

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. It is submitted that the expression used is “the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer”. The expression “in connection with such transfer” has to be seen in a wider manner and given a larger liberal interpretation. In the present case, the Assessee shall endeavor to prove that the expenditure incurred or paid was absolutely

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains. It is submitted that the expression used is “the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer”. The expression “in connection with such transfer” has to be seen in a wider manner and given a larger liberal interpretation. In the present case, the Assessee shall endeavor to prove that the expenditure incurred or paid was absolutely

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

133(SC) , 136 ITR 621(Guj) , Gopal C Sharma Vs CIT 209 ITR 946 etc, the AO reported that the impugned land is not an agricultural land, the assessee has not brought any evidence to prove the claim of expenditure on development of land either during the assessment or during the remand proceedings , he made a round about claim

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:

Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) as well notices u/s 142(1) of the 1961 Act were duly issued by AO and served on assessee. During the course of aforesaid scrutiny proceedings conducted by AO, it was observed by AO that assessee has claimed an exempt income to the tune

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

capital gain was recomputed at Rs. 6,81,26,133/- Finally, the ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) showing

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 45 as same had not arisen by transfer of any capital asset, which was a pre- condition for loss to be treated as capital loss, thus, such a loss could not be carried forward and set off against capital gains of subsequent years - Held, yes." :- 28 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. 4.2.1 In view of the above

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 45 as same had not arisen by transfer of any capital asset, which was a pre- condition for loss to be treated as capital loss, thus, such a loss could not be carried forward and set off against capital gains of subsequent years - Held, yes." :- 28 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. 4.2.1 In view of the above

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 45 as same had not arisen by transfer of any capital asset, which was a pre- condition for loss to be treated as capital loss, thus, such a loss could not be carried forward and set off against capital gains of subsequent years - Held, yes." :- 28 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. 4.2.1 In view of the above

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

capital gain under section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish the sale and purchase deed of the land claimed to be agricultural land by the assessee. The assessee has not furnished the sale deed of the land. However, he has furnished purchase deed which shows the land to be an agricultural land. However, before