ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by learned CIT-DR that the assessee has not furnished full and true particulars in the return of income filed by the assessee. Our attention was drawn

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by learned CIT-DR that the assessee has not furnished full and true particulars in the return of income filed by the assessee. Our attention was drawn

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

237 ITR 13(SC) and it was submitted that even objections raised by internal audit party could be basis for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the 1961 Act. It was submitted by learned CIT-DR that the assessee has not furnished full and true particulars in the return of income filed by the assessee. Our attention was drawn

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital account of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration reflected an increase of Rs.115,26,13,606/-, which was treated as unexplained and added by the AO u/s.68 of the Act. Out of the said addition, an amount of Rs.113,46,87,657/- comprises the following two components: i. a sum of Rs.93,63,20,420/- representing gain

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gains and accepted the explanation of the assessee, therefore mere change of opinion, reopening of assessment is bad in law. Further, the ld.A.R submitted that reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act, there should be some outside material, which could be said to have come to the knowledge of the AO after the original assessment order was passed

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI vs. MANGAL TIRTH ESTATE LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1965/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income-Tax, V. No. 769, Spencer Plaza, Corporate Circle-4(1), Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023

section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and adopted deemed consideration for computation of long term capital gains. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: From the above noting the following points emerged : 1. As on 31.03.1999, Out of 1,50,000 sq.ft. the assessee company had handed over

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Capital Gain’, the question of allowing deduction u/s.54F of the Act, does not arise, and thus, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the AO and the Ld.CIT(A) to reject deduction claimed u/s.54/54F of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the ground taken

GOVINDARAJAN RAMASAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 45; (b) if the cost of the new asset is less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, so much of the capita gain as bears to the whole of the capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged u/s. 45. Provided that

ITO, NCW - 1 (5), CHENNAI vs. MS. S. BALASARASWATHI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, the land impugned, is within 6 km s from the outer limit of Tambaram Municipality and squarely falls under the definition of capital asset and the sale of this land results in taxable capital gain and cannot be claimed as exempt as agricultural in nature. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee

PADMA VASHI SHEWARAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the impugned is set aside and the appeal of the

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2281/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Padma Vashi Shewaramani, The Assistant Director Of No.73, Janki Bhawan, V. Income Tax, Sardar Patel Road, International Taxation, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aayps 4687 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer has applied Rule 8D for making disallowance on income not chargeable to tax. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable from assessment year 2008-09. Thus, to the impugned assessment year

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

Capital Gain thereby raising a demand of tax dues of "9,23,150/- relying upon the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Anand Electric Co. Ltd vs. CIT 237 ITR 587. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

M/S. TAJMAHAL AGRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 & 2006-07 are partly allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

capital gain and hence we dismiss corresponding grounds of the appeal of the assessee. 5.1 On the claim of deduction u/s 80G, the fact remains that during the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee has produced donation receipts for Rs.18,000/- & Rs.36,000/- paid to Amar Seva Sangam, which was eligible for deduction U/s.80G as per order dated

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

gains of the undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. K.DHANDAPANI AND CO. LTD., CHENGALPUT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

Section 2(14) and the appellant is not liable for any capital - 8 - ITA No.1428/Chny/2017 & CO No.109/Chny/2017 gains tax on the sale. The addition of Rs.18,58,00,000/- made by the Assessing-Officer in this regard is deleted. The appellant succeeds on this ground.” Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions

KAMLESH SHANTILAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

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

capital gain from sale of shares. The Assessing Officer further, on the basis of information filed by the assessee noted that assessee had originally purchased 10,00,000 equity shares of M/s. PS IT Infra & Services Ltd., on 16.08.2013 from M/s. Prem Sagar Vinimay Pvt .Ltd. through open offer @ ` 35 per equity share. These shares were subsequently demated and sold