DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 48 of IT Act provides for mode of computation of capital gains. The starting point of computation is the full value of consideration received or accruing. What in fact never accrued or was never received cannot be computed as capital gains u/s 48. In the case of KP Vargheese vs ITO Ernakulam 131 ITR 597, the Supreme Court

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)

Gain earned by the assessee as income from business or denying the benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act, and as well as with the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) who had sustained the addition made by the Ld.AO. 8.2 Further on examining the decisions relied by the Ld. Revenue Authorities we do not find much strength

KANCHAN BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

KANCHANA BAI CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

158(SC) where it was held that merely because the assessee claimed deduction, not accepted by the AO, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) not allowed. In the present case, the assessee has furnished the particulars and there is no Bonafide mistake in disclosure of capital gains. Hence, the penalty cannot be levied. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

gain arose to the assessee on transfer of capital asset is available before the assessing officer. Therefore, it is for the assessing officer to examine whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 4 I.T.A. No.233/Mds/2016 54/54F of the Act. After examining the claim of the assessee, if the assessing officer finds that the assessee is not eligible

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital assets, that 72 - - ITA 1695 to 1697 & CO 84/Mds/14 the amount received by the assessee on account of forward contract in foreign currency was a capital receipt and not exigible to tax. According to the CIT(Appeals), the same view has been held in the case of M/s. Sutlej Cotton Mills

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

capital gains for exchange of lands ought to consider both legs of the transaction and that it is only the net value arising out of such exchange, after considering the market value of both properties exchanged, that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act are to be applied?” 2. “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case

A.J.HAMEED SULAIMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2719/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri A.J. Hameed Sulaiman, The Income Tax Officer, No.69, New No.6, Thirumalai Pillai V. Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aauph 5954 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

158). 3. On the contrary, Shri S. Nataraja, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee originally claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of capital gain

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

capital gains’ and re- determined the assessee’s income. As per submissions made before us, the assessment has attained finality and the assessee has paid the outstanding tax demand. 4.4 Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by Ld. AO in the body of assessment order as follows: - This amount of demand should be paid within one month and penalty proceedings

C.KISHANLAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

Section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are consequential in nature. Vide its grounds 3 to 5, assessee assails sustenance of an 4. addition of "90,62,161/-.(Actual figure it appears is "90,66,072/-) 5. Facts apropos are that assessee, a pawn broker, was subjected to a search u/s.132 of the Act on 04.01.2012. Consequent to this

KISHANLAL & SONS (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2928, 2929, 2930 & 2931/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2006-07, 2006-07, 2006-07, 2012-13

Section 234A and 234B of the Act, which are consequential in nature. Vide its grounds 3 to 5, assessee assails sustenance of an 4. addition of "90,62,161/-.(Actual figure it appears is "90,66,072/-) 5. Facts apropos are that assessee, a pawn broker, was subjected to a search u/s.132 of the Act on 04.01.2012. Consequent to this

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(1) , CHENNAI vs. SRIMURUGAN PARAMASIVAM , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

158,Coral Merchant Street, 16,Greams Road,Chennai-6. Mannady,Chennai 600 001. PAN : AGEPP 9305 M (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) अपीलाथ- क0 ओर से/Appellant by: Mr.S.Sridhar Dora,JCIT,D.R ./यथ- क0 ओर से/Respondent by : Mr.N.V.Balaji,Advocate सुनवाई क0 तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा क0 तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2019 आदेश

DILIP KAPUR,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, NFAC, CIRCLE 1 , PONDICHERRY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

gains and offered it to tax of Rs.13,24,121/- so this cannot be subject matter of dispute. The AO on merits u/s.147 passed Order dated 27.09.2021 considering the assessee's submissions and accepted the assessee's Return of Income. Hence, on merits there was no addition to income as assessed in the Assessment :-5-: ITA. No: 984/Chny/2024 u/s.143

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. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower

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. We are inclined to first adjudicate the legal issues raised by the assessee, ITA Nos.2270 to 2274/Chny/2024 Arvind Nandagopal (AYs 2014-15 to 2018-19) :: 12 :: which if found valid, goes to the root of the matter [since it challenges the jurisdiction exercised by the AO u/s 153C of the Act]. 10. Assailing the action of the lower