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

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

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:

Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act for the following reasons and referred the matter to the Dispute Resolution Panel by passing a Draft Order u/s.144C dt. 30/03/2022: (i) Land sold by the assessee is not an agricultural land 'but a housing site'- as per the Encumbrance Certificate. (ii) Chitta and Adangal provided by the Deputy Tahsildar

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

section 144C(1) of the Act proposing to assess total income of the assessee at ₹.3,24,84,013/- as against the returned income of ₹.35,013/-. The said draft order was challenged before the DRP. The assessee filed details relating to long term capital gains before the DRP. Having not filed before the AO/TPO, the DRP sought remand report

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

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

144C of the Act on 31-03-2022 proposing to disallow the loss of Rs. 61.37 lacs incurred in share trading and adding Rs. 32.05 lacs as unexplained income u/s 69 of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the draft order passed by the ld.AO. The DRP after considering the submissions

MURUGANAND SWARNAMALA,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, INT. TAXATION WARD, COIMBATORE

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.82/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Muruganand Swarnamala Ito बनाम 48, West Ponnurangam Road, International Taxation Ward, / Vs. R.S. Puram, Coimbatore-641 002. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agvps-9513-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar, (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144C of the Act. 8. The ITO, INT TAXN WARD, Coimbatore/ DRP failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity before passing of the orders and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice would be nullity in law. 9. The ITO, INT TAXN WARD, Coimbatore/ DRP failed to appreciate that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM GAUTAMAN, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

144C(3) of the Act vide order dated 03.03.2023 bring to tax as capital gains an amount of Rs.8,17,33,050/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee raised contentions with regard to the legal issue as well as on merits that lands transferred

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

Section 5OB of IT ACT 1961 2.4 The learned DRP held that there was no 'element of non-competition in the transaction' which was not acceptable as per the agreement it is seen that the assessee is transferring the right, title and interest in the business forever to the its Associated Enterprise. From the above it is very clear that

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

Section 5OB of IT ACT 1961 2.4 The learned DRP held that there was no 'element of non-competition in the transaction' which was not acceptable as per the agreement it is seen that the assessee is transferring the right, title and interest in the business forever to the its Associated Enterprise. From the above it is very clear that

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

Section 5OB of IT ACT 1961 2.4 The learned DRP held that there was no 'element of non-competition in the transaction' which was not acceptable as per the agreement it is seen that the assessee is transferring the right, title and interest in the business forever to the its Associated Enterprise. From the above it is very clear that

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

144C(4) of the Act on 28.02.2018 assessing total income of Rs.61,28,16,850/- by making addition on TP adjustment of Rs.3,71,56,870/- and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act of Rs.31,35,846/-. Subsequently, the A.O has reopened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act, but accepted the return of income at Rs.57,25,24,130/- without

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

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

VISUAL GRAPHICS COMPUTING SERVICES INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CO CLE III (4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 28

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2340/Mds/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

gains as are derived by a 100 per cent. export oriented undertaking from the export of articles or things or computer software for ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture or produce. Consequently, it is evident that the basis on which the assessment has sought

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

144C(13) of the 1961 Act, levied interest on ‘assessed income’ instead of ‘returned income’. We have heard both parties. It is no more res-integra that interest u/s 234C of the 1961 Act is automatic , mandatory and compensatory in nature . Reference is drawn to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H.Ghaswala

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

144C(13) of the Act dated 11.01.2023 and the relevant para reads as under:- “In this regard, based upon the information it was ascertained that income from capital gains has been under-assessed within the provision of section 50C and within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, for a sum Rs.29,20,000/-. Therefore

DCIT,CC-2(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S, JAN DE NUL DREDGING (I)(P)LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.870/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Jan De Nul Dredging (I)(P) Ltd., “Capital”, 10Th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacj6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 26.08.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Dredging Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.3,86,20,850/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed Under Section 143(1)

Capital”, 10th Floor, No. 554/555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Room No. 511, 5th Floor, Wanaparthy Mount Road, Chennai 600 018. Block, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AAACJ6482G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ashik Shah, C.A. & Ms. C. Sowndarya