M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

capital gains. While passing the impugned order, the Ld PCIT placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex court to support his arguments on earnings from business or income from house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before

IL&FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

section 43A with effect from 1-4-2003 and gain arising on account of exchange fluctuation is not liable to tax as it is on capital account. This case law is about external commercial borrowing for the purpose of acquiring capital asset. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that foreign exchange rate fluctuation should be adjusted to the actual cost

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

gain\narising on business succession was not taxable in view of section 47(xiv) of the\nAct.\n19. The assessee also contended that his case had been selected for limited\nscrutiny and that the additions made by the AO were beyond the scope of\nlimited scrutiny. It was argued that the AO had expanded the scope of\nassessment without obtaining

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. IL AND FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital asset under this section shall, in respect of so much of the sum\nspecified in the contract as is available for discharging the liability aforesaid, be\ncomputed with reference to the rate of exchange specified therein.]\n7. 5. 2. Whereas Sec.43AA talks about all other situations of foreign exchange\nfluctuation and its taxation. This section was inserted

ACIT, CUDDALORE vs. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI, CHIDAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

154 held that the assessee is not liable for payment of capital gains tax when substantial amount of sales consideration for purchase of ITA No. 415/2015 & :- 7 -: CO.43/2015 residential property was made before the extended period of limitation of filing of return of income i.e. 139(4) of the IT Act. The Ho'ble ITAT A Bench in the case

VIMALARANI BRITTO,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2992/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Vimalarani Britto Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 13, Kasturba Nagar, Income Tax, 3Rd Main Road, Adyar, Central Circle-2(4) Chennai-600 020. Chennai. Pan: Aadpv 8816C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains which is in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act overlooking the narrow scope of the provisions in section 154

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

154 of the Act. 2. This is second round of litigation. Vide order dated 30.10.2013, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains

M/S. RAGHUNATH GREEN POWER (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Raghunath Green Power Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Vs. Income Tax, Company Circle V(3), Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr1513K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Chennai, Dated 18.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W. Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Against The Rectification Order Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act.

154 of the Act. 2. This is second round of litigation. Vide order dated 30.10.2013, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the assessment order passed under section 143(3) 2 I.T.A. Nos. 3084 & 3086/Chny/19 r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 22.12.2011, in which capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

154 on 31-03-2016. The matter reached up-to Tribunal wherein the matter was restored back to the file of Ld. AO for re-computation of capital gains since there was error in the computation of STCG. Pursuant to the same, another assessment order was passed on 31-12-2018. 2.3 In the latest assessment order passed

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

Capital Gains Deposit Scheme. With these observations, the ld. Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s.54 of the Act and disallowed the claim with other disallowances and assessed income u/s.143(3) of the Act vide ITA No.1123/Mds/2016. :- 6 -: order dated 20.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

154 ITD 369 (Delhi) 7. The ld.AR further submitted the Bank statement of HDFC Bank, Bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Certificate from HDFC Bank to prove that the assessee did not have any term deposit and confirmation letter from ‘Aviva Construction company for having paid Rs.40.00 Lakhs only for purchase of flat. Apart from these documents, the ld.AR stated

MADANRAJ HAMIRMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

154 ITD 369 (Delhi) 7. The ld.AR further submitted the Bank statement of HDFC Bank, Bank statement of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Certificate from HDFC Bank to prove that the assessee did not have any term deposit and confirmation letter from ‘Aviva Construction company for having paid Rs.40.00 Lakhs only for purchase of flat. Apart from these documents, the ld.AR stated

MANJAPRA VARIETH BALACHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3134/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Manjapra Varieth Balachandran, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward, 3(2), No.17, Old No.9/1, Lynwood Avenue, Mahalingapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aczpb8798F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

154 ,the AG’s adopted valuation of Rs.62,79,438/- of transfer 1( supra 1) has been entirely reduced in computation of transfer 2(supra 2),. (xv) In the Remand Report filed before CIT(A) ,by the AO, he has adopted Rs. 100 Lacs as per Annexure read with Calculation of Capital Gain Transfer 1 Chart

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

T vs. SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND,CHENNAIVS.ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GROWTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical

ITO, CHENNAI vs. TVS SHRIRAM GRWOTH FUND, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital income in the earlier paragraphs. Therefore this issue also stands remitted to be file of the Assessing Officer to decide the correct income under the head Income from other sources to be passed on to the beneficiaries or to assessee in the hands of the assessee in the representative capacity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical