BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

249 results for “capital gains”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai728Delhi590Bangalore350Chennai249Ahmedabad190Kolkata160Jaipur141Karnataka131Hyderabad114Pune62Visakhapatnam60Chandigarh46Cochin45Surat39Raipur36Indore34Rajkot33Cuttack33Nagpur18Calcutta17Amritsar16Telangana11Guwahati9Lucknow9Jodhpur9Varanasi8SC7Kerala6Patna5Ranchi5Dehradun4Rajasthan3Agra3Allahabad2Jabalpur1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 4079Section 19563Addition to Income44Disallowance40Deduction38Section 533TDS29Section 234E22Section 320Section 143(3)

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

201 of the additional paper book and argued that the reassessment proceedings in the hands of assessee may be erroneous, but, not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the partnership firm accounted the long term capital gain and paid taxes thereon. As we discussed above that there is no doubt the partnership firm knowing the long term capital gains

Showing 1–20 of 249 · Page 1 of 13

...
18
Section 14A13
Section 153A12

RAMESH KUMAR GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: 11.04.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 54F

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

ITA 310/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: ShriP. SajitKumar,JCIT
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

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

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

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

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

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

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

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

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

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

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

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

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

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

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

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

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

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

ITA 2821/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) & Shri. NFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

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

ITA 1560/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. A.B. Koli, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 133(6)Section 2(14)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

ITA 320/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

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

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 10(37)

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

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

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

ITA 2634/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 50C

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

ITA 973/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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: -

For Appellant: Ms. Hema Muralikrishnan (Advocate) - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

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

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

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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]

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

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

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 859/CHNY/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

201(1A) dated 21-03-2006 for A.Ys. 2002-03 and - 2003-04 is cancelled.” 6. On a query from the Bench from the ld. D.R. as to whether there is any contrary decision of any other High Court, the ld. D.R. replied that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision is a lone decision on the issue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 439/CHNY/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

201(1A) dated 21-03-2006 for A.Ys. 2002-03 and - 2003-04 is cancelled.” 6. On a query from the Bench from the ld. D.R. as to whether there is any contrary decision of any other High Court, the ld. D.R. replied that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision is a lone decision on the issue

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 435/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. M.M.Bhusari, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148Section 40

201(1A) dated 21-03-2006 for A.Ys. 2002-03 and - 2003-04 is cancelled.” 6. On a query from the Bench from the ld. D.R. as to whether there is any contrary decision of any other High Court, the ld. D.R. replied that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision is a lone decision on the issue

ACIT, NCC-22,, CHENNAI vs. SMT. RAJESWARI KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3286/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3286/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Non-Corporate Circle 22, Vs. Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.: 2/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.3286/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rajeswari Kumar, The Acit, No.9, Vellakottai, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 22, Tmk Variyar Avenue, Tambaram, Chennai. Keelakattalai, Chennai – 600 117. Pan: Aafpk 0536J (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"/Appellant) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(iv)

capital gain amounting to Rs.47,21,690/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4 I.T.A. No.3286/Chny/2019 & C.O No.2/Chny/2020 4. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 quashed the reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by stating that