DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. KUMARASAMY PILLAI APARNA, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 999/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kumarasamy Pillai Aparna, Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 43, Kannadasan Salai, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Srds, Non-Corporate Circle -7(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Afzpa-9359-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 54 of the Act. 23. Consequences of execution of the agreement to sell are also very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants could not have sold the properly to someone else. In practical life, there are events when a person, even after executing an :-7-: ITA. No:999/Chny/2023 agreement to sell an immovable properly

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

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

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

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

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

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

Section 153C of the Act and therefore objected to the\nvalidity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act. Upholding\nthis contention of the assessee, the Tribunal is noted to have held as\nunder:-\n12. We further find ourselves to be in agreement with the Id. A.R that\nthe 'Statement' of Sh. Abhinandan Lodha (supra) recorded under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MULLIAMBAL RATHNASAMY PITCHAKANNU ERAAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

290/- on 31.03.2010. The return of the Appellant was selected under CASS by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2010. The AO on the basis of information already with the department that the assessee had sold 8 I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 Immovable property for Rs. 9,58,38,600/- called for details by issuing notice

ZOHO CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is\ndismissed

290/-. The\ncase was selected under the limited scrutiny CASS category and\nreasons, inter-alia, included large deduction claimed under chapter VIA\nand large deduction claimed u/s 90/91. During the course of assessment\nproceedings the Ld. AO noted that assessee had claimed foreign tax\ncredit amounting to Rs.8,93,06,247/- within the meanings

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI vs. M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act by raising the following purported substantial questions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.7.2008, by which the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that

M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1)-LTU-2, , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act by raising the following purported substantial questions of law arising from the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 31.7.2008, by which the learned Tribunal upheld the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and held that

SARAVANAN PRIYA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 15(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

290, 291, 292 and 293, R.S.No.311/3 and 312/1, as per Patta S.No.311/3B and 312/17, as per Patta No.382, New Survey No.312/17A situated at Venkateswara Colony 13th link Road, Old No.141, New No.111, Kottivakkam Village previously Tambaram Taluk, presently Sholinganallur Taluk Kancheepuram Dist. (Presently within the limits of Corporation of Chennai) for a consideration

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

290 ITR 227 141 18 Daljit Singh Pyare Lal & HC-P & H 269 ITR 19 146 Co. 19 Karnataka State Co- HC-Karnataka 130 taxmann.com 114 149 operative Apex Bank Ltd. 20 C. Kishan Rao & Co. ITAT 3 ITD 474 155 Hyderabad The ld.Counsel further submitted that the issue which is sought to be revised is already investigated and enquired

SENGODA GOUNDER HUF, SALEM,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1179/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sengoda Gounder Huf, The Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Backside Of Collector’S Vs. Income Tax, Bungalow, Hasthampatti, Circle-1, Salem – 636 007. Salem. [Pan: Aayhs-3071-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2024

section 271(1)(c) of the Act (hereinafter “the Act”) levied by the ld. AO vide order dated 12-12-2019. :- 2 -: 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) dismissing the appeal is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. 2

M/S T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee are\ndecided as under:-\n\n| ITA Nos\n| Assessment\nYear\nResult\n| IT(TP)A No

gains of business or profession within the\npurview of section 28 to 41 of the Act. The definitions contain therein\nare important since the same are not available in any other part of the\nAct.\nThus, section 43(3) supra provides that \"plant” includes \"books”.\nWe have also noted that Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in the case

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

Section 50C,\nis required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend\nthat the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation\nto be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty.\nThe legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a\nfair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

Section 50C,\nis required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend\nthat the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation\nto be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty.\nThe legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a\nfair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

Section 50C,\nis required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend\nthat the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation\nto be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty.\nThe legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a\nfair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

Section 50C,\nis required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend\nthat the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation\nto be made by the District Sub Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty.\nThe legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a\nfair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There