PADMINI RAJAN, L/R OF LATE (SHRI) NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has confirmed additions made by the AO. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete additions made towards deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited

NAREN RAJAN,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has confirmed additions made by the AO. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete additions made towards deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. LATE SHRI NAREN RAJAN, REP.BY L/H SMT. PADMINI V.R, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2012-13 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act does not arise. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts, has confirmed additions made by the AO. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete additions made towards deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act towards advance received from M/s Tristar Accommodation Limited

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had also challenged additions made towards long term capital gain derived

EMPEE HOLDINGS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 2(22)(e) contemplates accumulated profits which means not only profits derived from business activity, but also includes all other profits including capital gains

BHARATHAN ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against an Order dated 21.06.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, in ITA No.97/CIT(A)-16/2013-14 for AY 2013-14 on the following grounds of appeal: Grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

22] As we deal with this aspect of the matter, it is necessary to take a quick look at Section 42 of the Act and consider whether it applies to the situation before us. It is so for the reason that taxability of the impugned receipts as profits and gains form business and profession has been upheld because these receipts

RAMSAMY PONGIANNA GOUNDER DESAMANI,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITD, WARD 2, , TIRUCHENGODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains arising before\nthe 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and\nbefore the 1st day of April,1956.\nExplanation 2.-- The expression" accumulated profits" in sub-\nclauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company\nup to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

22 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 owner to the developer to possess the land and bring such land under its control to do certain developmental activities in terms of the contract. The essence of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is that there is a transfer as soon as the possession is vested. The law treats the same as deemed sale

REJI ABRAHAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. However the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “The appellant’s contention is considered. The position of law is fairly clear that even capital gains

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S ABAN VENTURES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be invoked. However the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as follows: “The appellant’s contention is considered. The position of law is fairly clear that even capital gains

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SMT. REETA LANKALINGAM, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri S.S. Godara

e) of the Act. We observe that facts of this case are otherwise. Thus, we quote our inherent jurisdiction u/s.254(1) of the Act, take notice of the assessee’s unconditional written concession and hold this ground as not maintenable. The relevant question stands decided in the Revenue’s favour. 16. Now, we come to case ITA 21/2014 raising challenging

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

22 :: assessee had accordingly computed the capital gains arising from such slump sale u/s 50B of the Act, which was supported by certificate obtained in Form 3CEA, and which we find placed at Page 39 of the Paper Book. The assessee is noted to have computed the full value of consideration at Rs.100,86,53,504/- and the net worth

SHRI D. SAIVENUGOPAL,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 6 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 27.06.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12 passed against quantum additions as well as rejection of rectification petition under section 154 of the Income

D. SAIVENUGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.107/Chny/2021 & 2417/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri D. Saivenugopal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No. 5, New No. 11, Sami Chetty Income Tax, Street, Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai 34. [Pan:Betps6046G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundaram, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai Dated 27.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Against Quantum Additions As Well As Rejection Of Rectification Petition Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 27.06.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12 passed against quantum additions as well as rejection of rectification petition under section 154 of the Income

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

e- mail. 8. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that normally the assessee-company deals with re-insurance company outside the country directly. However, in order to distribute the risk to various companies and the assessee may not have the entire list of re-insurance companies across the globe, the assessee