MOHAMED NAYEEM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 213/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 M. Mohamed Nayeem, Income Tax Officer, No. 94, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 7(4), J.J. Complex, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aeypm 6644L]

section 50C r.w.s. 16A of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the assessee. With regard to the assessee’s claim that the interest paid on the capital asset should form part of the cost of asset when computing the capital gains, it is clear from the order

SCL TRADELINK AND SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU

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.: 317/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Scl Tradelink & Services Acit, Limited, V. Corporate Circle -6(1), No. 9, Cathedral Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aakcs-5424-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2023

6. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The facts with regard to the investment with AIF by the assessee and sale of said investment by venture capital :-5-: ITA. No: 317/Chny/2022 fund is disputed. It was also not in dispute that AIF has sold shares of capacif

RENOWNED ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

6) disputing the valuation by the VO, so that the VO shall also have to be heard in the matter, the ld. AR – the assessee’s counsel, Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, would concede that he does not press those grounds, and that the assessee’s case be confined to that as argued by him. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would

G.C.SIVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.G.C.Sivaraj, V. The Dy. Commissioner Of 21, Prem Nivas, Income Tax, Psg Estate Colony, Peelamedu, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Bqips 4795 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain on sale of land and (ii) deduction u/s.54F of actual expenditure incurred on improvement of residential building against the appellant and dismissing the appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessing officer's action in adopting the FMV as on 01.04.1981 of 9.37 acres of land as Rs.1,04,93,894/- (at :: 2 :: the rate

K.SAMPATH KUMAR,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

capital gains accordingly. Now, the question arises whether the AO has any option to change the value which was valued by DVO for the indexation purposes. We noted that the assessment order was passed after taking into consideration the DVO’s report and DVO made this report on reference u/s.55A of the Act, which made the provisions of section 16A

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

gains arising from sale of property and disallowance of agricultural income, details of which are discussed in ensuing paragraphs. 6. The AO completed the assessment by passing an order u/s.143(3) dated 31.12.2016 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,61,21,310/- and raised a demand of Rs.1,68,02,700/-. The AO in completing the assessment

SRI A RAMAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S.Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपील सं/ Ita No.1759/Chny/2018 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri A.Ramamurthy, Vs The Deputy Commissioner No.2, Vii Cross Street, Of Income Tax, New Colony, Chrompet, Circle-I Chennai-600 044. Tambaram,Chennai-600 045. Pan: Addpr9196C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.Rajasekaran, C.A ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By Shri Guru Bashyam, Jcit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2018 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018

16A for deduction of tax as required under section 203 of the Income-tax Act. Moreover, the assessee has the option of disclosing interest income accrued on the fixed deposit, either in the year of accrual or in the year in which the fixed deposit attains maturity. Therefore, it cannot be construed as concealment of income by the assessee

HOOBATHALAI MATHAGOWDER SUGUMAR ,WELLINGTON vs. PCIT-2, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

16A, 1-1 Abbleby Road, Ootacamund. Wellington – 643 232. PAN : AOAPS 0674L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Arjun Raj, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2022 आदेश

JCIT (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE - 1 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

16A place on paper book at page 204. When the department has given "No Objection Certificate" for remittance made to Indian Offshore Inc., for earlier years which is placed on record at page Nos.211-212 of the paper book. Further, it is brought on record that there was no addition in earlier assessment years as evident from the copies filed before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

16A place on paper book at page 204. When the department has given "No Objection Certificate" for remittance made to Indian Offshore Inc., for earlier years which is placed on record at page Nos.211-212 of the paper book. Further, it is brought on record that there was no addition in earlier assessment years as evident from the copies filed before

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

16A place on paper book at page 204. When the department has given "No Objection Certificate" for remittance made to Indian Offshore Inc., for earlier years which is placed on record at page Nos.211-212 of the paper book. Further, it is brought on record that there was no addition in earlier assessment years as evident from the copies filed before

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1812/Chny/2019 &

16A place on paper book at page 204. When the department has given "No Objection Certificate" for remittance made to Indian Offshore Inc., for earlier years which is placed on record at page Nos.211-212 of the paper book. Further, it is brought on record that there was no addition in earlier assessment years as evident from the copies filed before

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. REGEN POWERTECH (P) LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

6. confirmed the addition of "7,09,35,162/- subsidiary received from Andhra Pradesh Government was reflected in the profit and loss account and claimed as Capital receipt while computing total income. ITA No.766 & 786/Mds/2016 :- 14 -: 6.1 The ld. Authorised Representative explained that the company has accounted subsidiary in the Books of account for Income Tax purpose

REGEN POWERTECH PRIVATE LMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Department are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

6. confirmed the addition of "7,09,35,162/- subsidiary received from Andhra Pradesh Government was reflected in the profit and loss account and claimed as Capital receipt while computing total income. ITA No.766 & 786/Mds/2016 :- 14 -: 6.1 The ld. Authorised Representative explained that the company has accounted subsidiary in the Books of account for Income Tax purpose

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

16A issued for TDS, therefore provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

16A issued for TDS, therefore provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

16A issued for TDS, therefore provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

16A issued for TDS, therefore provisions of section 40a(ia) of the Act are not applicable and deleted the addition. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act and on and relied on the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 1485/2007 in remitting to the Assessing Officer