ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital gain.\nWe are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee,\nwhich if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the\njurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act].\n10. Assailing the action of the lower authorities, the Ld. AR Shri. B.\nRamakrishnan C.A submitted that, in order

PANDIT VETTRIVEL,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3 (4),, CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.146/Chny/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Pandit Vettrivel Acit बनाम B-272, Ground Floor, B-Block Central Circle-3(4) Rear Flat, Greater Kailash Part I, Chennai-34. / Vs. New Delhi-110 048. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajzpp-4861-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

138 ITR 783) to support its submissions. 8. We find that the assessee has furnished Adangal Extract Receipts issued by Tahsildar, Perundurai dated 21-11-2017 where the agricultural crop ‘corn’ is shown as cultivated on the agricultural land. The assessee has also furnished Electricity Board Receipts. The assessee has been granted subsidy on electricity charges. The assessee has also

KALYANASUNDARAM BHARATH HARI,CHITTLAPAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INT. TAX WARD 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gains out of the above said transactions and provisions of clause (c) of explanation 2 to sec.147 are applicable to facts of this case and a notice u/s.148 was issued on 19-03-2021 requiring the assessee to file the return in response to section 148. The notice was duly complied and a return was submitted

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

138/- under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, at the rate of 150%. However, as per the approval granted by the DSIR, only Rs.15,23,62,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 16,68,49,425/- was considered eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB). Consequently, the AO noted that there was a difference of Rs.1

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

138/- under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, at the rate of 150%. However, as per the approval granted by the DSIR, only Rs.15,23,62,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 16,68,49,425/- was considered eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB). Consequently, the AO noted that there was a difference of Rs.1

M/S. TAFE MOTORS AMD TRACTORS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

138/- under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, at the rate of 150%. However, as per the approval granted by the DSIR, only Rs.15,23,62,000/- out of the total claim of Rs. 16,68,49,425/- was considered eligible for deduction under Section 35(2AB). Consequently, the AO noted that there was a difference of Rs.1

BRAHMAR CELLULOSE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [PAN: AADCB3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

capital gain in this case. The assessee has brought in the claim of the\nfamily arrangement in order to claim that the transaction under consideration is not\ntransfer and therefore the same cannot be brought to tax under the Sections of\nCapital Gain Tax under the Act.\n5.6 In this connection the Id.DR submitted that the transaction question

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pudukottai Co Pvt Ltd (supra). In this case also, the assessee was engaged in the business of money lending, in the course of which, it had borrowed loans at 6.01% and had realized interest income of 4.92%. The AO had disallowed

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pudukottai Co Pvt Ltd (supra). In this case also, the assessee was engaged in the business of money lending, in the course of which, it had borrowed loans at 6.01% and had realized interest income of 4.92%. The AO had disallowed

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and department are\nallowed or dismissed as per chart below

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

MASILAMANI NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

gains. According to him therefore, there was no material whatsoever in the possession of the AO basis which he could have objectively inferred that the contents/information therein related or pertained to the assessee or suggested that the assessee had received any ITA Nos.2265 to 2269/Chny/2024 (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) Masilamani Nandagopal :: 36 :: personal benefit outside the books, thereby

HYUNDAI TRANSYS INC,REPUBLIC OF KOREA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.338/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Hyundai Transys Inc, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 105, Sindang Income Tax, 1 Ro Seongyeon, International Tax, Myeon, Corporate Circle 1(1) Seosan, Ccn 356851 Chennai. Korea.

capital gains tax would be reconsidered by the Tribunal in case it comes to the conclusion that the notice dated 13/11/2000 is a notice within jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer’’. 11. Therefore, in the light of above settled position of law and respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts judgments referred supra , we admit

DCIT CIRCLE 1, TIRUPUR vs. M/S EASTERN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LIMITED, TIRUPUR

The appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Gains of Business or Profession " ? iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that the amount of Rs.1,54,10,800/- spent on construction of building is revenue in nature whereas the lease agreement recognizes both land and building and hence it clearly falls within the ambit