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

290 ITR 433 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. L. Alagu Sundaram Chettiyar reported in 109 ITR 508. While doing so, the Ld.AO was of the view that M/s. Aban Ventures Ltd., was used as a conduit company to transfer funds from M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., to Mr. Reji Abraham

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

290 ITR 433 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. L. Alagu Sundaram Chettiyar reported in 109 ITR 508. While doing so, the Ld.AO was of the view that M/s. Aban Ventures Ltd., was used as a conduit company to transfer funds from M/s. Tuticorin Power Company Ltd., to Mr. Reji Abraham

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

Section 153C of the Act and therefore objected to the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the AO u/s 153C of the Act. Upholding this contention of the assessee, the Tribunal is noted to have held as under:- 12. We further find ourselves to be in agreement with the Id. A.R that the 'Statement' of Sh. Abhinandan Lodha (supra) recorded under

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

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

THULASI NARAYANAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 54 , the assessee has satisfied all the conditions prescribed u/s54 and hence sought the benefit of deduction u/s 54 and allow the expenses incurred for brokerage and advocate fee , construction of compound wall and other expenses. :-7-: 3. The AR submitted inviting our attention to the sequence of events as under : DATE EVENT 24.12.2007 Family property (2 acres

LATE SHRI VIJAY KUMAR KOGANTI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-1 , CHENNAI

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

gain at ` 25,83,290/- accepting the returned income. 2. On perusal of the Assessment Record for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the following facts have emerged:- 2.1 A scrutiny of the return filed by the assessee for the AY 2014-15 reveals that the assessee had admitted a capital of Rs.5

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

BHARATH PROMOTORS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, CHENNAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

2 to 6 which go to the root of the matter and directed against the order of CIT(A) enhancing the income of the Appellant to INR 5,46,06,718/- holding the same to the business income, as against Capital Gains Income of INR 4,80,58,290/- returned by the Appellant which was assessed

BHARATH PROMOTERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 9 raised by the Appellant is without any merit and contrary to the material on record, and is, therefore, dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:115/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 2015 & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:3129/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 – 2016 M/S Bharat Promoters, No. 42/43, Kavignar Bharathidasan Road, Siet College Road, Chennai - 600018 …………… अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaifb7735P Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-3, 121/108, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Bsnl Building, Tower-I, No. 16, …………… ""थ"/Respondent Greams Road, Chennai - 600034 Appearances: For The Appellant/Assessee : S Sridhar, Advocate For The Respondent/Department : V. Sreedevi, Jcit : 02.06.2022 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Of Order : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary:

2 to 6 which go to the root of the matter and directed against the order of CIT(A) enhancing the income of the Appellant to INR 5,46,06,718/- holding the same to the business income, as against Capital Gains Income of INR 4,80,58,290/- returned by the Appellant which was assessed

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

M.S.AMARESAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1930/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. M.S.Amaresan Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of S-101, 4Th Main Road, Income Tax , Anna Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-7(1) Chennai. Chennai-600040. Pan : Aafpa 2740N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant By Mr. N.Arunraj, Ca For Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate : Mr. Suresh Periasamy,Jcit ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23. 12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 20.06.2017 In I.T.A.No.24/Cit(A)6/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Partial Reworking Of The Claim For Tax Exemption U/S 54F Of The Act In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains Without Assigning Proper Reasons & Justification. 3. The Cit (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Misconstruction Of Section 54F Of The Act Would Vitiate The Decision Rendered In Para 4.3 Of The Impugned Order & Ought

2 to have appreciated that the reinvestment in two units should not be considered independent of each other, thereby vitiating the decision rendered in para 4.3 of the impugned order. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the misreading of the decision of the Madras High Court would vitiate the decision rendered in para 4.3 of the impugned order