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 :

section 147 / 148 are bad in law. The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis of change of opinion is not permissible in law. It has been submitted that as per extant statutory provisions covering the subject, reassessment u/s 148 is only permissible if either some new facts have come to the notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

gain which the assessee had acquired for selling shares at highly undervalued price. The Ld. AO therefore after reducing the reported cost of acquisition of OCPL shares amounting to Rs.2,60,11,810/-, made the impugned addition of Rs.2,94,33,160/-. We have however noted that the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

gain which the assessee had acquired for selling shares at highly undervalued price. The Ld. AO therefore after reducing the reported cost of acquisition of OCPL shares amounting to Rs.2,60,11,810/-, made the impugned addition of Rs.2,94,33,160/-. We have however noted that the hypothesis propounded by the Ld.AO is flawed and not supported

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

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

capital gains. The first appellate authority found that the land was classified as agricultural land and as per revenue record the land squarely fell within the definition of agricultural land and therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Upon further appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble High Court of Madras held

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

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

160 Taxman 276), to\njustify that the regular books of accounts of M/s Binny Limited can be\ntreated as incriminating material which related / pertained to the\nassessee, to be factually distinguishable. The decided case involved a\nshort question of application of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act in the hands of\nthe shareholder of a closely held company, which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. MOHAMED MUYEENUDDIN PAZHOOR KOCHU MOHAMED, KANCHIPURAM

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 923/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Mohamed Muyeenuddin Income Tax, Vs. Pazhoor Kochu Mohamed, Central Circle 1(2), E1, 2Nd Main Road, Chennai. Juhu Beach, Sholinganallur S.O., Uthandi, Kanchipuram – 600 119. Pan: Aaipm 4366P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darshan Bothra, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2025

section 194 IA on the full sale consideration, was claimed by assessee in his Return of Income filed for assessment year 2018-19. 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that

VENKATRAMAN JAYASHREE PRIYADHARSHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-3,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.64/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Venkatraman Jayashree Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Priyadharshini, No. 8/5, Income Tax, Rajaji 1St Street, Lake Area, Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Adapj3317L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Giving Relief To The Extent Of ₹.88,85,000/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] 2 I.T.A. No.64/Chny/25 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹.1,41,02,880/- including the claim of long term capital gains at ₹.1,37,10,855/-. The Assessing Officer determined

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains by issuing\ncompany in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant case, not only that the\nfair market value is supported by independent valuer report, the allotment\nhas been made to the existing shareholder holding 100% equity and\ntherefore, there is no change in the interest or control over the money by\nsuch issuance of shares. The object

VITHIYA MURALI,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KUMBAKONAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.3333/Chny/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vithiya Murali, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.51, Subramaniyampuram, Ward-1, Mayiladuthurai, Nagapattinam Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-609 001. [Pan: Aohpv4251M]

160 in which the same view was taken with reference to Section 54F was also noticed by this Court. 9. It thus appears to us that the predominant judicial view, including that of this Court, is that for the purposes of Section 54F, the new residential house need not be purchased by the assessee in his own name

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

capital gains of Rs. 12.30 crores in the financial year relevant to assessment year 2017-18. :-18-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 10. The Ld. Counsel further submitted, in so far as interest income on redeemable financial instruments, the company had investments in Shriprop Housing Pvt Ltd in the form of preference shares, which are treated as debt under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi - Trib.) the Hon'ble\nDelhi Tribunal had held that Where fact of earning interest\nincome and miscellaneous income had been duly disclosed by\nassessee in its accounts and in original return with full details, it\ncould not be alleged that assessee was guilty of under-reporting\nand/or misreporting of income penalty under section 270A was\nnot

ST.JOSEPH'S INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL CHENNAI - 1, CHENNAI

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

capital expenditure. This argument predicates on the\nassessment order, which apparently does not give any reasons while\nallowing the entire expenditure as revenue expenditure. However, that\nby itself would not be indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer\nhad not applied his mind on the issue. There are judgments galore\nlaying down the principle that the Assessing Officer