M/S. BHAGGYAM BUILDERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

section 47(ii), the result of which was that distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm was regarded as "transfer". The effect was that the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a firm to a partner on dissolution or otherwise would be chargeable as the firm's income in the previous

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9(1) , CHENNAI vs. ANIL SHETH , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:” 18. Section

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

capital in nature. For this, ld.CIT-DR relied on the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Thomas and Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1963] 48 ITR 67(SC) and CIT vs. Amalgamation (P) Ltd., [1997] 92 taxmann 132 (SC). 13.3 We noted that no doubt the assessee is not in the business of running

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Capital Gain on\nsale of immovable property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on\nsale of immovable property at T Nagar, Chennai\"\nThe assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, wherein the following additions were made for the\nΑ.Υ. 2013-14:\nSl.No Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,57,140\nAdditions:\n1\nUnexplained cash deposits u/s.69\n1,60,46,854\n2\nInterest

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

section 14A in A.Y 2009-10, & 2010-11 is remitted to the file of the AO to re-compute the same after giving opportunity to the assessee. 6. The next common ground in all the appeals is with regard to disallowance of proportionate interest made by the AO as attributable for advance granted to subsidiary companies by the assessee

ASHA MARTHANDA PILLAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

140/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noted that assessee had sold a property at Madipakkam, Chennai for a consideration of "63,00,000/- on 28.09.2012. Assessee had claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act on the gains arising out of sale of above property. As per the assessee, she had invested

VIMALA KAWAD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 263 is bad in law as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case. I.T.A. No.233/Chny/2021 3 3. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for inadequate inquiry under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner

PR. PERIAKARUPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD IX(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 50C of the Act and adopted the assessee’s share at `17,07,140/- relating to Shri P.R.Narayanan and determined long term capital gains

P.R.ALAGAPPAN,KARAIKUDI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), KARAIKUDI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 50C of the Act and adopted the assessee’s share at `17,07,140/- relating to Shri P.R.Narayanan and determined long term capital gains