ITO(EXCEMPTION) TRICHY, TRICHY vs. GRAMA VIDIYAL TRUST, TRICHY

In the result, both ITA No

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.1534 & 1535/Chny/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Grama Vidiyal Trust, (Exemptions), Trichy Vs. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620001 (Pan: Aaatg2928F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri N. V. Balaji, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arv. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No. 156/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 04.03.2019 & 163/2017-18/Cit(A)-1/Try Dated 22.02.2019 Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Ito, Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Both Dated 30.12.2017 For Ays 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. First We Take Up Ita No. 1534/Chny/2019 For Ay 2009-10 For Which The Revised Ground Taken By The Revenue Is As Under:

1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1),— (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilised for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital gain

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

sections [***] [54, [54B, [***], [54D, [54E, [54EA,\n54EB,] 54F [, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income tax\nunder the head \"Capital gains\", and shall be deemed to be the\nincome of the previous year in which the transfer took place.\n[(1A

ST. JOSHEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

capitation fees,\nfailed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced\npenalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a).\n• The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate.\nInvalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative\nintent to deter tax evasion in search cases.\ne. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\n• The notice should

ST. JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

capitation fees,\nfailed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced\npenalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a).\n•\nThe 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate.\nInvalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative\nintent to deter tax evasion in search cases.\ne. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice\n•\nThe notice should

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 64(1A) speaks of addition of total income of minor child and income of a minor child for purpose of inclusion u/s.64(1A) will be his total income. From above ITA No.2254/Mds /2015. :- 15 -: definition of total income as given u/s.2(45), it is clear that it is not gross total income but income of any person

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. LIFE HELP CENTRE FOR THE HANDICAPPED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1),— (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes98, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital gain

CLASSIC LINENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD), COMPANY RANGE-I,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3341/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Classic Linens International Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Unit 13 & 14, Sdf, Ii Phase Vs. Income Tax, Osd, Company Range-I, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabcc3510F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Raghunathan & Shri S. Sankar Narayanan, Advocates ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai, Dated 30.09.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Relates To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Deduction Of ₹.52,61,428/- Claimed Under Section 10Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the deduction, in computing the total income of an undertaking, which begins to manufacture or produce articles or things or computer software during the previous year relevant to any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2003, in any special economic zone, shall be hundred per cent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

1A).\nExplanation.-For the purposes of this section, the expression “income from\nforeign sources” means income which accrues or arises outside India (except\nincome derived from a business controlled in or a profession set up in\nIndia)] [and which is not deemed to accrue or arise in India] .....\"\n4.5 The first and foremost condition to be satisfied by a person

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9(1) , CHENNAI vs. ANIL SHETH , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression “of the nature referred to in Section 53A” in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive

VENKEDAPATHY VENUGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NON CORP WE 2(1) COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

1A) of the Act. On a plain reading of the statutory provisions, there exists no express bar either in section 87A or section 111A for denial of rebate in respect of tax payable on short-term capital gains

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A" in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. The ITAT was not correct in referring to the expression "of the nature referred to in Section 53A" in Section 2(47)(v) in order to arrive

WAHEEDA ASIF ABBAS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3354/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13

Capital Gains Account or not. 6. We have carefully gone through the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. The word “any such income” as appears in Section 64(1A

FAIZA HEMEED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

1A) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 read with section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to hold that capital gain

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

1A at page 166 of the paper-book demonstrates the purchase of the new asset comprising of land and building, which is captured below:- :- 8 -: 10. The sole reason for denial of exemption u/s 54 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is on the ground that the assessee had not deposited the sale proceeds into the capital

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

gains. The second limb of the statute e.i “purchase”\nhas not been fulfilled. The assesse is consistently harping on the issue that\nas it has purchased the impugned immovable property from Jeypore Sugar\nCompany Limited(JSC) and has paid the whole amount of consideration\namounting to Rs.141 Crores app. and has obtained the possession, there\nmay not be any doubt

BHAVANI DISTILLERIS AND CHEMICALS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gain. The appellant partly success on this ground.” 5.4 The Ld.DR vehemently argued before us in support of the order of the Ld.AO by reiterating the discussions made therein and pleaded that her order may be restored. On the other hand the Ld.AR reiterating the submission made before the Ld.CIT(A) prayed that the entire amount of compensation