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

9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has sold a residential house and computed long term capital gain, after claiming deduction u/s. 54 of the Act, and also, said amount was invested in acquiring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

Capital\nGain (LTCG) in his return of income filed under section 139 on\nbasis of seized papers and Assessing Officer completed\nassessment by accepting said LTCG, since income assessed was\nnot greater than income determined in return processed under\nsection 143(1)(a),there was no case of under reporting of income\nas per provisions of section 270A

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

139(1) of the Act but complied with the conditions u/s.54F(1) of the Act by purchasing and construction of residential property within three years from the date of transfer of original asset which is not disputed in the assessment proceedings or in appellate proceedings. The provisions of Sec. 54F are beneficial provisions and are to be considered liberally

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

9. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the basis on which Assessing Officer proceeded. In paragraph 9.1 of the order of assessment he has, inter alia, held as follows : "The basic point revolves around the issue that whether in the block assessment period it could be considered about the income which has been hitherto being

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

9. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the basis on which Assessing Officer proceeded. In paragraph 9.1 of the order of assessment he has, inter alia, held as follows : "The basic point revolves around the issue that whether in the block assessment period it could be considered about the income which has been hitherto being

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

139(1) and this amount was due to the assessee as on 31.03.2001 and hence the entire amount is to be considered for computation of capital gains. But while computing capital gains and tax payable by assessee thereon , the AO took the figure of Rs. 12 cores for computing capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

139(1) and this amount was due to the assessee as on 31.03.2001 and hence the entire amount is to be considered for computation of capital gains. But while computing capital gains and tax payable by assessee thereon , the AO took the figure of Rs. 12 cores for computing capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

139(1) and this amount was due to the assessee as on 31.03.2001 and hence the entire amount is to be considered for computation of capital gains. But while computing capital gains and tax payable by assessee thereon , the AO took the figure of Rs. 12 cores for computing capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

139(1) and this amount was due to the assessee as on 31.03.2001 and hence the entire amount is to be considered for computation of capital gains. But while computing capital gains and tax payable by assessee thereon , the AO took the figure of Rs. 12 cores for computing capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount

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

9. The ld.AR for the assessee assailing the action of the ld.CIT(A), submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in understanding the provisions of section 54 of the Act and confirmed the action of the AO. The ld.AR submitted a paper book containing 72 pages consisting of copy of agreement for construction of new flat, copy of sale deed

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

9. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that both the AO and ld.CIT(A) have incorrectly interpreted the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act and its proviso. He argued that their conclusion that the failure to purchase a residential property within 2 years or to construct within 3 years automatically renders the entire net sale consideration

AMMAPURAM RAJARAMAN RAJESH,TRICHY vs. DCIT, NCC-17(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Chny/2025 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2019-20

Gains, the return of loss has to be filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). 10. Thus, a bare reading of these provisions gives an infallible impression that to be entitled to carry forward the business loss or capital loss, the assessee is required to file the return under section 139(1) of the Act. Section

RAM KRISHAN KULWANT RAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1047/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

139 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is bound to initiate proceeding under Section 153C of the Act. Having dropped the proceeding under Section 153C of the Act, according to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer cannot initiate any proceeding for reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the decision of Amritsar