M/S. DEENSONS TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2774/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 1997-98

gain – Held, yes Reasoning adopted in this case was that the definition of capital asset as given in section 2(14) of the Act does not include stock-in-trade held by the assessee for the purpose of his business or profession. The property in question which was held by the assessee as stock-in-trade could not be regarded

LALITHA KUMARI PRAKASH CHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

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

234/- and rate works out to Rs.3,298.5 per share. The third tranche of remaining 12,675 shares has been sold for consideration of Rs.53,15,464/- and rate works out to Rs.419.4 per share. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant facts and also taken note of various clauses in MoU opined that agreement between parties is tool for avoidance

M/S. SIVANANDHA MILLS LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

SIVANANDHA MILLS LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

sections 36(1)(vii) rws 36(2) of the Income Tax Act”. 9.3 Further, it is submitted that no such information was ever asked for in the course of appellate proceedings. He submitted that the claim of bad debts needs to be allowed in view of the following judgments: (i) CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

234 A/B/C 213597 3960936 Tax payable 3960940 0 Deposit u/s 140A made on 14.05.2009 From the above, it is clear that the assessee has declared long term capital gain of Rs. 1,64,19,510/- on the sale consideration of Rs. 4,00,40,000/-. While computing the capital gain, he has claimed the indexed cost of land

M/S. BHAGGYAM BUILDERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

section 45(4) is applicable & the object of the amendment was to remove the loophole which has existed whereby capital gains tax was not changeable. Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal challenging the decision of the CIT(A). 4. The AR taking us through the paper book submitted the above facts

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHRI GANGESAN SASEENDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. In view of the facts as they emerge, I am of the view that a liberal interpretation of the statute needs to be taken. In doing so, I am guided by the following judicial pronouncements: i. Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT vs Bharti Mishra repoted in [2014] taxmann.com 50 (Delhi). ii. Hon’ble Madras

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

section (1) of Sec. 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which provide that such advance tax is to be reduced by amount of income tax which would be deductible or collectible at source during the said financial year under any provision of this Act from any income (as computed before allowing any deduction admissible under this Act) which

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ANIL REDDY YEDUGURY SANDHINTI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross-

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

234 ITR 753(All) and CIT v JR Subramaya Bhat (1987) 165 ITR 571/(1986) 28 Taxman 578(Kar). These two cases deal with interpretation of section 54 of the Act. The said section is pari materia in section 54F. The only distinction being that section 54 applies to investment in a new house where the original asset sold was/is

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ANBEZHIL SURYARAJ KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Anbezhil Suryaraj Kumar, Flat No. G.2, Aarudhira Flats, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. Chennai. [Pan:Aetpa4862K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 9 Days. The Dcit Central Circle 2(2), Chennai Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Appellant-

capital gain on individual property, the Assessing Officer restricted the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act at ₹.1,89,81,211/- and for the joint property to ₹.1,39,81,211/- and treated 9 I.T.A. No.1676/Chny/25 the on-money received amounting to ₹.3,52,34,234

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. Hyundai Motor India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park Income Tax, Irrungattukottai, 1775, Jawaharlal Nehru Inner Sriperumbudur Taluk, Ring Road, Kancheepuram District, Anna Nagar Western Tamil Nadu-602117 Extension, Chennai-600101 [Pan: Aaach2364M] (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

capital gains or income by way of winnings from lottery, cross word, puzzles etc. Section 234(C) provides no other

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

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

234 |TR 371, 391-\n92(AAR). In the facts of that case it has been held (P.230) that the payments\nmade by x\" to the applicant would not be taxable under section 44BB and\nby virtue of the Proviso to Section 44BB(1), the case of the applicant gets\ncovered by the provisions of Section 44D and 115A. However, since

MITHU KUMARI RANKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(30, CHENNAI

In the result, five appeals vide ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble“C” Bench

Capital Gains arose on sale of Shares as per the provisions of section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. For that the assumption of the Ld. AO as well the CIT (Appeals) - 2 relying on the statement of a third party without confronting the evidences for cross verification is contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. MARTIN, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain. The fact remains that the assessee retired from partnership firm and received a lump sum compensation from the firm. This was disclosed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no question of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of Apex Court

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. S.MARTIN, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain. The fact remains that the assessee retired from partnership firm and received a lump sum compensation from the firm. This was disclosed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no question of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of Apex Court

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. S.MARTIN, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2382/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3146 & 3147/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri S. Martin, Income Tax, V. No.335-339, Daisy Plaza, 6Th Street, Gandhipuram, Central Circle -2, Income Tax Building, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 011. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aewpm 3703 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain. The fact remains that the assessee retired from partnership firm and received a lump sum compensation from the firm. This was disclosed before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no question of any concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the judgment of Apex Court

R.UPENDRAN (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 54 takes into account all independent residential unit and complete house. Independent residential units, particularly in these days when multi-storeyed flats are becoming the order of the day. In this case, if the assessee invested the capital gains in the construction of further floor in the existing building and even if it was commenced before the sale

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

234/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively. 11.1 In the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act at ₹.1,22,03,205/- on the gross receipts from sale of six flats aggregating to ₹.1,94,39,317/-. By observing that the joint development agreement with M/s. KGEYES

ASTORIA LEATHERS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in I

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

234/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 respectively. 11.1 In the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act at ₹.1,22,03,205/- on the gross receipts from sale of six flats aggregating to ₹.1,94,39,317/-. By observing that the joint development agreement with M/s. KGEYES