ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

163 / 94 Taxman 164 where it was held as follows: “Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines "transfer" in relation to a capital asset. It is an inclusive definition which, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. It is not necessary

DR. PRATHIMA VENKATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2612/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dr. Prathima Venkatachalam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O Revathi S. Raghunathan, Vs. International Taxation 2(1), Chartered Accountant, Flat No. 32, Chennai. G Block, Re Classic Apartments, 68, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. [ Pan: Aqkpp 4278K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit

163/- and claimed exemption u/s. 54 on investment in a Residential property in UK. The assessee filed letter dated 16.02.2015 explaining that the Restriction of investment in House property in India only is applicable from assessment year 2015-16, and relied on the Tribunal decision of Prema P. Shah vs ITO 100 ITO 60 [Mum], where a Residential property acquired

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

163 had held in the context of Section 54F of the Act that when the entire sale consideration is utilized in construction of a residential house on or before the time limit specified u/s 139(4) of the Act, exemption cannot be denied merely because the amount was not deposited in the capital gains

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS) is only a Directory provision and not a Mandatory provision. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to notice that are plethora of case laws, including the decisions of the H’ble Jurisdictional Madras High Court, cited before him, in favour of the assessee’s claim for deduction

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Capital Gains of Rs.1,32,78,187/- admitted by the assessee has been modified by the AO at an figure of Rs.1,88,57,487/-. 8. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

Capital Gains of Rs.1,32,78,187/- admitted by the assessee has been modified by the AO at an figure of Rs.1,88,57,487/-. 8. In view of the above grounds and other submissions to be made at the time of Appeal hearing, the order U/S 250(6) passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after a comprehensive analysis of the facts, had held that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. ACCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after a comprehensive analysis of the facts, had held that

ACCEL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 38

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

163,74,371 5.2.1 It is also noticed that similar disallowance was made by the AO :- 7 -: ITA No. 23, 24, 144 to 147/2015. for AY. 04-05 including RS.3 crores which is a subject matter of discussion for the present assessment year and my Id. predecessor, after a comprehensive analysis of the facts, had held that

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

ITO, NON-COPORATE WARD-19(6), CHENNAI vs. SHRI.GOMATHINAYAGAM RATHINASABAPATHY, EKKADUTHANGAL CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains account. The appellant being innovative in approach constructed an energy efficient greenhouse in line with the various renewable energy initiatives undertaken by the Government of India, which cannot become a hurdle in accepting the construction of a house for allowing the benefit of54F deduction. Therefore, the AO is hereby directed to allow the 54F deduction and delete

TREADSDIRECT LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. JCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

163 of the Act and also ITA Nos.2794 &2941/Mds/2014 :- 15 -: circulars and the assessee has established that commission was paid only for the purpose of managing sales of assessee outside India which involves technical expediency for marketing. But the ld. Assessing Officer was trying to establish that there is a business connection with subsidiary Company and disallowed foreign sales commission