ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

Capital\nIQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of\nI & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance\nAct, 2021 clause (b) of Section 2(11) of the Act was amended and the goodwill\nof the business or profession is excluded from the block of assets comprised

SHRI SURESH ALLADA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -I(I), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

144C(5) of the Act, both for the Assessment Years 2019-20. 2. The facts and circumstances of both the appeals of assessees, being co-owner of property sold, issues raised and facts of the appeals are identical as the issue is arising out of the same transaction and hence, we deal with the issues and we will take

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

144C(5) of the Act, both for the Assessment Years 2019-20. 2. The facts and circumstances of both the appeals of assessees, being co-owner of property sold, issues raised and facts of the appeals are identical as the issue is arising out of the same transaction and hence, we deal with the issues and we will take

MURUGAN DORAISAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.367/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Murugan Doraisamy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16, 17 & 18, Appasamy Towers, International Taxation Ward 1(2), Sir Thiyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Awkpm2217P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2025 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Short Point Raised For Consideration Whether The Assessing Officer Is 2

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal, amongst which, the only short point raised for consideration whether the Assessing Officer is 2 I.T.A. No.367/Chny/25 justified in denying the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\ncalled 'the Act'). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19.\n2.\nBrief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a\ncompany incorporated in UAE. During the assessment year 2018-19,\nthe assessee was in receipt of income of Rs.90 lakhs from an Indian\ncustomer named M/s. Gannon Dunkerley

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.

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is bad in law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The detailed grounds of appeal being independent and without prejudice to one another, including the position in law and facts is set out in the ensuing paragraphs. 2. Ground 2 Addition of Guarantee Fees

NARAYANAN,CHROMEPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

capital gains in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment order dated 18.03.2024 under section 144C(1

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMITH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA

144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act') for the\n assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 dated 29.03.2024,\n29.03.2024 and 29.03.2024 respectively. The CO has been raised by the\nassessee for the A.Y.2015-16 only. Since the facts are common/identical and\nthe issue of assessee's claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on\namalgamation

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(13) of the Act, wherein the AO has computed the income from capital gains on amount of Rs.378,94,21,668/- and computed Long Term Capital Gain @ 20% amounting to Rs.75,78,84,334/-. He particularly drew our attention to the computation part of capital gain. Even in the notes attached to balance sheet as on 30.04.2007, attached vide

SMART INFORMATION WORLDWIDE INC,CHENNAI vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V.Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024

144C(3) of the Act on 28-02-2019. The grounds of appeal read as under: - 1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to law and the facts of the case and is devoid of reasoning. 2. The learned Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that capital gains have to be computed based on the statutory provisions

DHANUSHKODI HARIDEERTHAM,PUDUKOTTAI vs. ITO, INTL TAXNL WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

capital gain, in\npursuance of the same, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued\non 19.04.2021. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15\non 13.10.2021. Since, the said case was reopened during the period\nbeginning on 01.04.2021 and ending with 30.06.2021, within the time\nextended by the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment

SMART INFORMATION WORLDWIDE INC,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Smart Information Worldwide Inc. Dcit बनाम/ 49 Sixth Main Road, International Taxation -2(2) Vs. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai-6. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-8497-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Ravichandran (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

144C(3) of the Act on 21-03-2017. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: - 1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to law and the facts of the case and is devoid of reasoning. 2. The learned Assessing Officer ought to have appreciated that capital gains have to be computed based

NATARAJ RAMAIAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAX ATION WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Nataraj Ramaiah, V. International Taxation No. 25, Kothari Road, Ward -2(1), Nungambakkam – 600 034. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaapr-5280-R] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee By : None ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. G. Suresh, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

1) on 18.02.2016 determining a refund of Rs.1,56,310/- as claimed by the assessee. The Notice u/s 148 dtd.09.03.2021 was served on the assessee for the following reason: "Sale of agricultural land (not being a capital asset) by the assessee on 25.02.2015 measuring 77 cents comprised in S.No.252/3 of Aryaperumbakkam Village being treated as 'Capital Asset' and charging

VA TECH WABAG LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(5) of the Act dated 23.12.2015. 2. The first common issue in this appeal of Revenue for A.Y 2010- 11 and the appeal of assessee for A.Y 2011-12 is as regards to the issue of adjustment made to Arms Length Price(ALP) on account of corporate guarantee commission whether to be made or not. For this, the Revenue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. V.A. TECH WABAG LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

144C(5) of the Act dated 23.12.2015. 2. The first common issue in this appeal of Revenue for A.Y 2010- 11 and the appeal of assessee for A.Y 2011-12 is as regards to the issue of adjustment made to Arms Length Price(ALP) on account of corporate guarantee commission whether to be made or not. For this, the Revenue

SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

capital gain as per the provisions of sec SOB of the act instead of 'Business Income' assessed by AO. 2.2. The DRP has not verified the facts of the case that of as per copy of business transfer agreement, it is found that what is being transferred by the assessee is the ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 3 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015

BANCA SELLA S.P.A. CHENNAI BRANCH (IT DIVISION),CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

capital gain as per the provisions of sec SOB of the act instead of 'Business Income' assessed by AO. 2.2. The DRP has not verified the facts of the case that of as per copy of business transfer agreement, it is found that what is being transferred by the assessee is the ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 3 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SELLA SYNERGY INDIA PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.398/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011

capital gain as per the provisions of sec SOB of the act instead of 'Business Income' assessed by AO. 2.2. The DRP has not verified the facts of the case that of as per copy of business transfer agreement, it is found that what is being transferred by the assessee is the ITA Nos.398, 417, 557/Mds/15 :- 3 -: And C.O.No.45/Mds/2015