SHRI PONDIAN MURALI,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, , KUMBAKONAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

142A r.w.s. 50C(2) of the Act. However, no valuation report has been received from the DVO. Therefore, the AO has computed long term capital gain from sale of property by adopting guideline value of the property as on the date of sale at Rs. 6,27,84,000/- and considered 50% share of the assessee which works

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

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

142A(6) of the Income Tax Act and therefore the addition of Rs.2,97,85,410/- could not have been made in the instant case. Ground No.11 For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition to the tune of Rs.11,91,900/- made u/s.56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act in respect of purchase

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain for the AY 2014-15.\n\n4.0\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that the\norder dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld.AO is barred by limitation within\nthe meanings of section 153(3). It has been argued inviting reference to\nthe statutory provisions of section 153(3) as well as judicial precedents\ncovering the subject