D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

capital assets acquired. Against question No. 12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated that the details of income accumulated under clause 2 of section 11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the prescribed format, will be submitted at the earliest and submitted the same at page 111 of the paper

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

capital assets acquired. Against question No.\n12 of the questionnaire, vide item No. 10 of its reply, the assessee stated\nthat the details of income accumulated under clause 2 of section\n11(1)/11(2) having bearing on this assessment in the prescribed format,\nwill be submitted at the earliest and submitted the same at page 111 of\nthe paper

RAMASAMI PALANISAMY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gain from the\ntransfer of impugned property in question. Upon being convinced by the\nassertion made by Mr. TSRK, the Revenue is noted to have dropped the\nproceedings by an order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated 07.04.2023\nwherein the ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore, has recorded the\nfollowing observations:-\n5. It is found that the first property

RAMSAMY PONGIANNA GOUNDER DESAMANI,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITD, WARD 2, , TIRUCHENGODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains arising before\nthe 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and\nbefore the 1st day of April,1956.\nExplanation 2.-- The expression" accumulated profits" in sub-\nclauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company\nup to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

DEVARAYA PILLAI SUBRAMANIAN,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. If the said compensation amounts are received in relation to agricultural property, then by virtue of the provisions of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act, the amounts would stand excluded from the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the I.T. Act. As for the interest amounts received

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

SMT. LINGAMMAL RAMARAJU SHASTRA PRATHISHTA TRUST,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal stands allowed

capital\nexpenditure of Rs.5,56,722/-. The Ld AR accordingly submitted that, the\nfacts on record showed that, the entire surplus from the petrol bunk of\nRs.73,27,209/- had been applied towards the educational activities,\nnamely the music school and library activities of the assessee Trust. In\nlight of these facts, the Ld AR gave us a brief overview

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

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 ()

2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) read with section 147 is bad in law. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed

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]

2(14) of the Act and is not liable to capital gain tax. The AO has reopened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, and in response to 148 notice the assessee has declared capital gains arising out of sale of land in the individual capacity. The :-7-: ITA. No:286/Chny/2019 tribunal while deciding the issue has held that capital

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

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

151(SC) has held that\nthe Assessing Officer is not allowed to alter his reasons, which must be\nconsidered only based on their recordings. In our considered view, this\nratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable with equal\nforce to the satisfaction note prepared by the AO for assuming jurisdiction\nto issue notice under section 153C

LATE ABDULLAH ABDULMAJEED, REP. BY L/H,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

Capital Gains' as provided under section 48 and this is the only\nmanner of understanding the words, 'income chargeable to tax under\nsection 149(1)(b) of I.T. Act.\n19. The contention of the Revenue that under section 149 what is required\nto be taken note of, is the 'income that has escaped assessment' being\nthe entirety of sale consideration

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

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• 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