M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151 taxmann.com 47 Delhi -Trib.) had an occasion to\nconstrue the ambit of that provision and had ultimately observed as follows:-\n"11. 1. As per case records, it is an undisputed fact that the shares have\nbeen allotted at a premium to its 100% holding company. Thus, applicability\nof Section on 56(2)(viib) has to be seen

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

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

2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the 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

2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment

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

2) will not make AO remediless u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. The learned CIT-DR relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.V.S.Beedies Private Limited reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment

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

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

2,02,35,151/-. 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

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

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

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

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

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)

2) and 142(1) were issued. During the financial year 2009-10, the assessee sold a residential house 3 I.T.A. No.2103/Mds/13 property for `1,12,00,001/- and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. As the due date for filing of return was nearing, the assessee deposited long term capital gain in Capital Gains Account Scheme

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