RAMESH KUMAR GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

201-12 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds in her appeal, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by granting only part relief when the assessee was entitled for the entire claim of deduction U/s. 54F of the Act. 3. The brief facts

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), CHENNAI vs. CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 2(47)(v) of the Act are applicable to property / land held as Stock-in-Trade. 2.1 The Revenue has raised the following Ground Nos.21. to 2.5 in regards to the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition of long term capital gains partly:- 2.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing officer to recomputed

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

THIRUMATHI KANNAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

201(1A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, an assessment has been re-framed in the hands of the seller for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 31.12.2018 wherein the capital gains have been computed in the hands of the seller

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy

section 2(13) but the expression adventure in the nature of trade has not been defined in the Act. It may be pertinent to mention here that a specific (iii) transaction partake the character of business or an adventure in the nature of trade or realization of capital asset or a mere conversion of asset has to be decided depending

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section (1) of sec. 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment whichever is earlier. In this case, the revised return was filed on 24.12.2003, i.e. well beyond one year

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section (1) of sec. 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment whichever is earlier. In this case, the revised return was filed on 24.12.2003, i.e. well beyond one year

CEYLON PENTECOSTAL MISSION,KANNYAKUMARI vs. THE ACIT (CPC), BANGALORE

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

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

gain on sale of property as per law, even though the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.11(1A) of the Act, by investing sale consideration for acquiring another capital asset. The learned AR further referring to Form No.10 along with Board resolution submitted that the assessee has accumulated Rs.6,39,878/- for specified purpose for which necessary formalities have been completed

ABAN OFFSHORE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, INTL, TAX 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Capital gains\") for-\n(i)\n(iva) the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific\nequipment but not including the amounts referred to in section 44BB;\n(v)\n(vi)......\nFees for technical services:\n“Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this clause, \"fees for technical\nservices\" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration)\nfor

LATE K.SENGODA GOUNDER, L/R SHRI S.KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

201. [PAN: CWBPS 4323 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. अपीलाथ" क ओर से/ Appellant by : ""यथ" क ओर से /Respondent by Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT : सुनवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30.03.2017 घोषणा क तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on sale of immovable property at T.Nagar,\nChennai\"\nThe assessment was completed and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of\nthe Act on 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the following\nadditions were made:\nSl.No. Details\nAmount Rs.\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,08,400\nAdditions:\n1\nDisallowance of Rent payment\n18,00,000\n2\nDifference in cash

SMT. JAYANTHI SEEMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 1 (2),, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Gain on sale of immovable property at T.Nagar,\nChennai\"\nThe assessment was completed and order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of\nthe Act on 29.12.2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11, wherein the following\nadditions were made:\nSl.No. Details\nAmount Rs.\n1\nIncome admitted in return of income\n2,08,400\nAdditions:\n2\nDisallowance of Rent payment\n18,00,000\n3\nDifference

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

capital gain on the basis of net consideration, whereas the A.O. recomputed the value by applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The Ld. A.R. contended that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He further submitted that the issue is debatable

RAMASUBRAMANIAM SRIDHAR PAUL,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 19(7), CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.973/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramasubramaniam Sridhar Paul Ito बनाम 334/45B, B-Block, Flat 201-202 Urban Ville Non-Corporate Ward-19(7) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. / Vs. Velachery, Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Anwps-2829-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-03-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-08-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act On 08-12-2019. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: -

201-202 Urban Ville Non-Corporate Ward-19(7) Velachery Main Road, Chennai. / Vs. Velachery, Chennai-600 042. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ANWPS-2829-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.AR " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of final Hearing : 06-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

201(1) of the Act.\n10.\nThe Ld.DR was unable to place on record any material to show\nthat Revenue has filed an appeal as against the order of the CIT(A) in\nthe case of the payer namely M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd. In\nthe hands of the payer, when the CIT(A) has categorically held that\nin absence

FLSMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT- 1, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

201/-, being difference between Rs. 184,53,19,919 (as on 31.03.2014) and Rs. 76,26,31,718 (as on 31.03.2013) and this being the amount reduced from the billed amount which the assessee had already charged its clients. Since the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting, income :- 4 -: accrues the moment bill is raised by the assessee. When