SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gains in the original return following the provisions of section 50C. Even during the original assessment proceedings, the appellant did not explain the reasons for deviating from the provisions of section 50C. The AO also did not either deal with the issue of applicability of provisions of section 50C in the original assessment. In other words

VENKATRAMAN LAKSHMINARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.543/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Venkatraman Lakshminarayanan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of H-402, Greshott Income Tax, 4, Bishop Garden Extn. R.A.Puram Corporate Circle-3(1) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Abipl 2475P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 48 of the Act, thereby vitiating the recomputation on all facets. 12. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the detailed submission supported by documents and workings filed before him in 86 pages were completely overlooked and brushed aside, thereby vitiating the recomputation of Long Term Capital Gains in all respects. 13. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

MOHAMED AKBAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-10(3), CHENNAI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymohamed Akbar, I.T.O., 2/2 1St St., Gf, Apt No. 2, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 10(3), Jamalia Perambur High Road, Chennai. Chennai-12 Pan No. Afepa 3815 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme would have gone unnoticed. Therefore, this is a case of concealment of income by the assessee and hence, attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.” The Assessing Officer also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) (191 Taxman

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI vs. RUDRADEV AVIATION PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meenaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2012 – 13 The Acit, M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. Corporate Circle – 5(2), V. Ltd., Chennai - 34. Rr Tower Iii, Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 152/Chny/2017 (In I.T.A. No. 2100/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012 – 13 M/S. Rudradev Aviation Pvt. The Acit, Ltd., V. Corporate Circle – 5(2), Rr Tower Iii, Chennai - 34. Thiru Vi Ka Indl. Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aadcr 3575R राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R. Venkatesh, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022

section 70 of the Act. He argued that the claimed expenditure was capital in nature and loss arising out of the same is not allowable loss under any other head of income. He stated that the CIT(A) has not appreciated that the irrecoverable advance of Rs.12,37,27,087/- represents a balance sheet item and cannot be allowed

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gains. According to him this transfer of assets is out of its business and it will be treated as business profit u/s.28(iv) of the Act. The ld.CIT-DR stated that once some parts or machineries are sold by the assessee by way of one Business Transfer I.T.A. No.1836/Chny/2017 16 Agreement, the entire facts are not disclosed

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

sections under the head 'Business' also, the loss cannot be allowed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains' since it has not arisen as contemplated u/s 45 of the Act and no "transfer’ as defined in the Act is involved. Such loss would only represent loss of capital of the assessee company and though a capital loss, it cannot

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

sections under the head 'Business' also, the loss cannot be allowed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains' since it has not arisen as contemplated u/s 45 of the Act and no "transfer’ as defined in the Act is involved. Such loss would only represent loss of capital of the assessee company and though a capital loss, it cannot

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

sections under the head 'Business' also, the loss cannot be allowed under the head 'Income from Capital Gains' since it has not arisen as contemplated u/s 45 of the Act and no "transfer’ as defined in the Act is involved. Such loss would only represent loss of capital of the assessee company and though a capital loss, it cannot

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains is as not leviable we dispose off the ground :-9-: I.T.A. No. 118/Mds/2015 raised before us, even though CIT(A) has not given any comments or findings in his order. 9. We find the assessee is in the Real Estate business and purchased the land from agriculturalist and disclosed as stock in trade and the cash payments were

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

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

191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital 21% 13% 38% Weight 3 2 1 (More weights for Latest Year) Weighted Average Return 21% Less Tax @ 35% (7%) Post Tax Return on Capital 14% Add : Risk Premium @ 100% 14% Net Discount Rate 28% 8.4 The assessee submitted that 10% error

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

191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital 21% 13% 38% Weight 3 2 1 (More weights for Latest Year) Weighted Average Return 21% Less Tax @ 35% (7%) Post Tax Return on Capital 14% Add : Risk Premium @ 100% 14% Net Discount Rate 28% 8.4 The assessee submitted that 10% error

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

191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital 21% 13% 38% Weight 3 2 1 (More weights for Latest Year) Weighted Average Return 21% Less Tax @ 35% (7%) Post Tax Return on Capital 14% Add : Risk Premium @ 100% 14% Net Discount Rate 28% 8.4 The assessee submitted that 10% error

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

191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital 21% 13% 38% Weight 3 2 1 (More weights for Latest Year) Weighted Average Return 21% Less Tax @ 35% (7%) Post Tax Return on Capital 14% Add : Risk Premium @ 100% 14% Net Discount Rate 28% 8.4 The assessee submitted that 10% error

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

191,988,017 Net Profit 43,084,972 29,194,480 73,348,325 Return on Capital 21% 13% 38% Weight 3 2 1 (More weights for Latest Year) Weighted Average Return 21% Less Tax @ 35% (7%) Post Tax Return on Capital 14% Add : Risk Premium @ 100% 14% Net Discount Rate 28% 8.4 The assessee submitted that 10% error