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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

171,\nwhere it was held as follows: -\n\"Section 47 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was introduced to take out\ncertain transactions which otherwise are transfers of capital assets and\notherwise taxable under section 45, from being taxed. On the\nreintroduction of sub-sections (3) and (4) by the Finance Act, 1987 in\nsection 45 clause (ii) of section

P.V.GOPALAKRISHNA,VELLORE vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

Section 54EC provides that capital gain not to be charge on investment on certain bonds. Therefore investments made in certain bonds shall be outside scope of capital gain for purpose of computation of total income itself, It is not a deduction under Chap. VIA which comes into picture only after commuting total income and deductions are being allowed from gross

M/S. DEENSONS TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2774/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1997-98

171/-. The matter travelled up to ITAT and the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT ‘A’ Bench, Chennai, in ITA No.2317/Mds/03 dated 20.10.2006 set aside the Order of the AO with a direction to decide the issue de novo. In the second round, the AO has passed Order u/s.143(3) r/w Sec.254 of Income Tax Act on a total income

S.BHUVANESWARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2944/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. S.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Hallmark Towers, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, 550 (Old No.136) Ttk Road, Corporate Circle-1(2) Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai. Pan: Aadpb 1269K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain from sale of property by invoking provisions of section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating fact that guideline value of property as on date of agreement to sale dated 09.02.2012 is less than agreed consideration fixed for sale of property. The learned A.R further submitted that the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1965/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income-Tax, V. No. 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-4(1), Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and adopted deemed consideration for computation of long term capital gains. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: From the above noting the following points emerged : 1. As on 31.03.1999, Out of 1,50,000 sq.ft. the assessee company had handed over

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act and ought to have appreciated that the judicial trend in this regard would vitiate the related findings in the impugned order. 10. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would

SHRI D. KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 8 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

Section 2(14) of the Act is also not satisfied in the case of the appellant. Further, the AO has also brought on record that the property: under consideration has been sold at a hefty price to an educational Trust and moreover the AO has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

SHRI THIRUMARAN PANDIAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 15 (4),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3107/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri T. Pandian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O P. Thirumaran, Plot No. 4, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Shalimar Garden Fifth Street, Chennai. Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115. [Pan:Afnpp7417G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.05.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Delayed By 91 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently

capital gains at ₹.1,89,34,171/-. On appeal, by considering the submissions of the assessee as well as various case law, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section

P.R.ALAGAPPAN,KARAIKUDI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), KARAIKUDI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 171(1) of the Act, it was the prayer that the sale of property, the capital gains, if any, was liable

RM.VISALAKSHI,KARAIKUDI vs. ITO WARD I(3), KARAIKUDI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 171(1) of the Act, it was the prayer that the sale of property, the capital gains, if any, was liable

P.R.NARAYANAN,KARAIKUDI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 171(1) of the Act, it was the prayer that the sale of property, the capital gains, if any, was liable

PR. PERIAKARUPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD IX(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in respect of Shri

Bench: Shri George Mathan

section 171(1) of the Act, it was the prayer that the sale of property, the capital gains, if any, was liable

A.N.MUTHIAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-21(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 68 of the Act. 8. The Learned Commissioner is wrong in his finding that in as much as capital gains tax is not paid on the sale of gold, the same is to be added back as income from other sources in the absence of any enabling provision for the same. 9. The Learned Commissioner ought to have known

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1115/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gains. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 13. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PVP VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in I

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1115/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gains. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Act. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the same is confirmed. 13. The next ground of appeal is with regard to addition

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops