D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

capital gain computation mechanism fail 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.10,000/- under section 56. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) estimate of agricultural income is very low. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the agricultural income offered by the Appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\n\nΟ\nCESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\n• CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n• Sundaram Asset Management Company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n- Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\n- CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n- NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n- Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\n- Sundaram Asset Management Company

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

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

239 ITR 587 (SC), has categorically explained that the tax was\nliable to be deducted by the payer of the gross amount if such payment\nincluded in it an amount which was exigible to tax in India. This is not so in\nthe present case. Here on account of the special provisions of section 44BB,\n10 per cent

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\n\nΟ CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\n\n- 19 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\nΟ CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\nO CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nO Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nO Sundaram Asset Management Company

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

239 (Para No. 22) of the case law paper book\n• Raymond Limited vs. DCIT [86 ITD 791 (Mum. ITAT)]\nΟ CESC Ltd vs. DCIT [87 ITD 653 (Cal. ITAT)]\n• NQA Quality Systems Register Ltd vs. DCIT 2 SOT 249\n(Del. ITAT)\nΟ Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR)\nΟ Sundaram Asset Management Company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

239,727 6 Magnum Trust 6,000,000 7 Raj TV 556,148,491 8 Shares in Akshitha Castle Pvt Ltd 99,990 9 Shares in Asita Jewellery Exporters Pvt Ltd 3,315,849 10 Shares in BB Jeweller Exporters Pvt LTd 41,000 11 Shares in Bhakthi Castle Pvt Ltd 99,990 12 Shares in Bhavya Homes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI. MOOLCHAND KIRAN KUMAR JAIN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 5 & 6/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 The Dy. Commissioner Of Shri. Moolchandkiran Kumar Income Tax, V. Jain, Central Circle -1(4), No. 123, Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-34. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Achpm-2247-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, (Hereinafter In Short "The Ld.Cit(A)”), Chennai, Dated 15.11.2022 Against The Assessment Order U/S.153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter In Short "The Act”) For :-2-: Ita. Nos: 5 & 6/Chny/2024

239,727 6 Magnum Trust 6,000,000 7 Raj TV 556,148,491 8 Shares in Akshitha Castle Pvt Ltd 99,990 9 Shares in Asita Jewellery Exporters Pvt Ltd 3,315,849 10 Shares in BB Jeweller Exporters Pvt LTd 41,000 11 Shares in Bhakthi Castle Pvt Ltd 99,990 12 Shares in Bhavya Homes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. IDFC LIMITED, TEYNAMPET

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

Section 115U of the Act. For this, we gainfully refer to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (218\nITR 239) wherein it was laid down that Assessing Officer should tax the\nincome in the hands of the right person.\n22. However, we note that the above new arguments were never\nconsidered

IDFC LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. JCIT-RANGE-II, CHENNAI

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

Section 115U of the Act. For this, we gainfully refer to the\ndecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (218\nITR 239) wherein it was laid down that Assessing Officer should tax the\nincome in the hands of the right person.\n22.\nHowever, we note that the above new arguments were never\nconsidered

LIFECELL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3334/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Lifecell International Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd., V. Income Tax, No. 26, Vandalur Corporate Circle 4(1), Kelambakkam Main Road, Chennai. Keelakkottaiyur, Chennai. [Pan: Aaeca-7997-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajith Kumar Choradia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

capital expenditure disallowed under section 35(2AB) under the provisions of Section 35(l)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. In connection with computation of tax: 23. The CIT(A) failed to note that the Appellant was entitled to credit of tax paid u/s 115JAA of the Act which was not provided