MRS.SHANTHAMANI (REPRESENTING LATE MR.M.RAMALINGAM),COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(2), COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shanthamani, The Income-Tax Officer, (Representing Late Mr. M. V. Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Ramalingam) Coimbatore. 111, Oor Gounder Thottam, Anna Nagar, Velappanaickenpalayam, Chinnavedampatti Po, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Anlpr-8229-C]

capital gains, if any arising out of sale of land if limitation prescribed u/s. 151 of the Act permits. The AO passed consequential order giving effect to tribunal order and reduced income assessed to nil. However, withhold tax paid by the assessee in terms of provisions of section

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 151 and hence the reopening and consequent reassessment is bad in law. 12. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sale of agricultural land is exempt. 13. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the sale of agricultural land as income

A. JAYAPALAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed & Stay\nApplication filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Capital Gains (LTCG) on sale of land and building. The AO reopened the assessment after four years, believing that the sale consideration shown was below the guideline value, leading to an escapement of income. The AO also questioned the cost of acquisition due to discrepancies in the age of the building mentioned in the purchase and sale deeds.", "held

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.

capital gains tax would be reconsidered by the Tribunal in case it comes to the conclusion that the notice dated 13/11/2000 is a notice within jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer’’. 11. Therefore, in the light of above settled position of law and respectfully following the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts judgments referred supra , we admit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n• Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n- Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\n\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nO Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

151 TTJ 126\n(Hyd. ITAT)\nΟ Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR)\n13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the\nsoftware AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries\nwhere there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria)\nis taxable in India by virtue of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

gains of business or profession. The said provision deal with the taxation of benefits and perquisites in kind i.e., non- monetary benefits arising from business or profession. Our above view is based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra vs. Commissioner (404 ITR 1 – SC) wherein it is held as under

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod

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

151 and section 153, in the case of\na person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under\nsection 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer\nshall\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such\nperiod