SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

151/-. Later, the AO passed rectification order u/s.154, enhancing the total income to `4,03,73,125/- by adding difference in capital gains earlier omitted. It is against the assessment of gain on transfer of land as capital gains by invoking section

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. 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.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : 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) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

151 The ratio of purchase/sales to holding is 1:7 The above ratio clearly proves that the assessee is more of a trader and not an investor. As regards clause 3 being the intent of profit making, out of the total capital gains of Rs. 1.95 crores short term capital gain alone amounts to Rs. 1.73 crores which clearly bring

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 139(1) of the Act, the assessee has deposited long term capital gains in Capital Gains Account Scheme and complied with the pre-conditions and also took the possession of the property on 30.05.2012 and there is no dispute of possession by the A.O. in the assessment order. Further, the Ld. D.R. relied on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain ITA No. 264/Mds/2016. :- 9 -: arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain’’. The contention of the ld. Assessing Officer

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHARUMATHY SESHADRI, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gains scheme account. Thus, the total investments as on 22.07.2011 was Rs. 2.6 crores. The assessee also obtained the planning permission on 04.07.2012 well before the due date for filing return u/s. 139(1) which was 30.09.2011. The other investments made by the assessee, as culled from the paper book , are as under: :-6-: 1. Payments made to government

RAMANATHAN ADAIKALAVAN,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital gain as envisaged in section 50. 4. Enquiries made by the AO as sequel to information received: NA 5. Findings of the assessing officer :- 5 -: If the facts mentioned in paras 2 and 3 are considered, then there would be an additional demand of Rs. 1,77, 18,004 besides interest u/s 234A and 234B as detailed below:- S.No

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : 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) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

151/- after making additions/disallowances. 3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as on merits. After considering the submissions and case law relied upon by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the action of the Assessing Officer

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

151 of the Act has been obtained to reopen the assessment proceedings, despite being demanded by the Appellant. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate that no proceedings under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act shall be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee submitted his reply and furnished evidence in support of his claim of long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to lead evidence to support his claim of long-term capital gain and considered the amount of Rs.1,74,552 as unexplained credit

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

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

151 TTJ 126 (Hyd. ITAT) O Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd: 326 ITR 477 (AAR) 13. The revenue, on the other hands, vehemently argued that the software AMC payments made in relation to vendors from countries where there is no 'make available clause' (i.e. Germany and Austria) is taxable in India by virtue of Section

ITO, VELLORE vs. P.ANSAR AHMED, AMBUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 528/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009. Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. P. Ansar Ahmed, Ward-3, No.45A, Jalal Road, Vellore Ambur 635 802. [Pan Afopa 2704C]

151/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) assessing long term capital gains at "44,48,980/- and accepting business income of "2,50,000/-. Thereafter ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the order of the ld. Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

SASIKALA RAGHUPATHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), Iv Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaafr5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ca Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit

capital gain offered to tax during the year: Rs. Nil -------------------------- 4. The main issue involved in the above claim of the assessee is that the assessee has bought 43.56 acres of the land at Mahabalipuram for Rs. 47,44,95,882/- and constructed a house in some part of land and claimed exemption

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