ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 45 as the income of the previous year. If the amount of capital gain is equal to or less than the cost of new residential house, including land on which the residential house is constructed, capital gain not be charged". 6.3 Furthermore, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the B. Premanandh vs. CIT (2022) 144 taxman.com 194

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.\nDuring the remand report in response to the mail given by the\nJAO calling for information u/s.133(6), the director of M/s.Omplas\nsystems gave a reply mail confirming the construction, copy of\nwhich is on the record. Regarding the permission and completion\ncertificates, it is explained that as new types of materials were\nused, construction permission

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

194\n\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\n\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\n\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

194\nInc\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\nclause) (A)\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR\n60,000\n35,77,464\nTotal of payments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

194\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR\n60,000\n35,77,464\nTotal of payments (without

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

194\n| Inc\n| 11 | Zoho Corp\n| USA\n| USD\n| 2,923\n| 1,31,798\n| 12 | Zoho Corp\n| USA\n| USD\n| 8,320\n| 3,76,480\n| Total of payments (with 'make available'\n| clause) (A)\n| 2,62,162\n| 1,20,46,349\n| Payments made towards Software AMC - countries without

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

194\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\nclause) (A)\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR\n60,000\n35,77,464\nTotal of payments (without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

194\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR\n60,000\n35,77,464\nTotal of payments (without

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

194\n11\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n2,923\n1,31,798\n12\nZoho Corp\nUSA\nUSD\n8,320\n3,76,480\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n2,62,162\n1,20,46,349\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make available'\nclause\n1\nSAP AG\nGermany\nEUR\n60,000\n35,77,464\nTotal of payments (without

DILIP KAPUR,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, NFAC, CIRCLE 1 , PONDICHERRY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

194 CTR 241) where in the HC's have upheld penalty where returned loss is reduced under Explanation 4(b) to S.271(1)(c) which reads as follows: :-7-: ITA. No: 984/Chny/2024 "Section 271(1)(c) Explanation 4(b) where in any case the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been

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

RAJKUMAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4, CHENAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s CIT (supra) has held that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated

M/S. ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCITCORPORATE CIRCLE1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

capital gain is provided in section 48 of the Act. According to this section, the only deductions which are allowable are - (1) the cost of acquisition of the asset, (2) the cost of any improvement thereto and (3) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset. The cost of acquisition, in our opinion, means

M/S ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

capital gain is provided in section 48 of the Act. According to this section, the only deductions which are allowable are - (1) the cost of acquisition of the asset, (2) the cost of any improvement thereto and (3) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset. The cost of acquisition, in our opinion, means

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

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

capital gain is provided in section 48 of the Act. According to this section, the only deductions which are allowable are - (1) the cost of acquisition of the asset, (2) the cost of any improvement thereto and (3) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset. The cost of acquisition, in our opinion, means

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

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A Nos.: 21/Chny/2022 & 40/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Tpo Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 797 & 798/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2757/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon V. Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1672/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aban Offshore Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of V. 113, Janpriya Crestpantheon Income Tax, Road, Egmore, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 008. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca-3012-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. P. Murali Mohana Rao, Ca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

capital gain is provided in section 48 of the Act. According to this section, the only deductions which are allowable are - (1) the cost of acquisition of the asset, (2) the cost of any improvement thereto and (3) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the asset. The cost of acquisition, in our opinion, means

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

194 IA: The ld.PCIT had presumed that even though credit for TDS was claimed u/s.194IA no income was offered to tax under capital gains. The assessee had established before ld.PCIT that capital gains was offered to tax by assessee as evident from the submissions made and reproduced in the order. The Ld.PCIT has not given any findings

TITAN COMPANY LIMITED 9EARSTWHILE KNOWN AS TITAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED),KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT LTU 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

section 43(5)(d) of the Act and hence, not allowable. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the marked to market loss claimed by assessee at Rs.2,17,16,894/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). ITA Nos.518, 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2020 9.2 The CIT(A) simpliciter dismissed the ground of assessee by observing that no evidence were filed by assessee before