SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term capital gains adopted

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term capital gains adopted

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term capital gains adopted

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

gains. 5.0 Appearing for the assessee, Mr.Sriraman, Advocate, argued that the company was incorporated for carrying out the real estate business and purchased two properties at No.107, G.A.Road on 31.01.1990 for Rs.8,47,976/-, on 09.03.1992 and it purchased adjacent property at No.36, Kappal Polu Street for the cost of Rs.2,18,248/- during

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KEEZHAYUR SOWRIRAJAN SREENIVASAN,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 2(14) of the Act. A similar issue had been considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of K.R Srinath Vs. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 436, where the Hon’ble Court, after considering relevant facts held that when the assessee had right to insist on specific performance and such right has been given

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.11.2017, which is beyond four years, without mentioning any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides relying upon various case

FL SMIDTH PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3423/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Flsmidth Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Vs. Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Company Circle – 2 (1), Chennai – 603 103. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacf4997N] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri M. Rajan, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 01.03.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai Dated 11.10.2019, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012–13. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Cit (A)’] Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D 2.1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 75,94,632 Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D.

capital gains from Rs. 6,59,07,526 to Rs. 6,39,81,926, hence the differential loss of Rs.19,25,600 should be allowed to be set-off in the subject assessment year. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, rescind, modify and/or withdraw in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds

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

capital gain and rejection of accumulation of income claimed u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that adjustment made by the S.P. No.33/Chny/2021 Assessing Officer, while issuing intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act is bad, because while processing return of income u/s.143(1), the Assessing Officer cannot make any addition except as provided therein under Explanation

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1193, 1194, 1205, 1206 & 1207/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Cognizant Technology Solutions Vs The Asst. Commissioner India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, No.5/535, Okkiam Thoraipakkam, Central Circle 1(1), Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai - 600 096. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1262, 1263, 1264, 1265 & 1266/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs Cognizant Technology Income Tax, Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 1(1), No.5/535, Okkiam Chennai. Thoraipakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai - 600 096. Pan: Aaacd 3312M (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निधारिती की ओर से/Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 - 2 -

248 Taxman 55 wherein the Division Bench of the Court followed another Division Bench judgment in the case of Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Mad.) and held that the view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11-2-2014, which has been relied by the Tribunal

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

gains tax. Further, he submitted that certain investments are foreign subsidiary and the dividend received from foreign subsidiary is taxable as such Sec.14A have no application. In our considered opinion, provisions of sec.14A as well as Rule 8D are applicable while computing the disallowance and the AO has to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies and also investment which does

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

gains tax. Further, he submitted that certain investments are foreign subsidiary and the dividend received from foreign subsidiary is taxable as such Sec.14A have no application. In our considered opinion, provisions of sec.14A as well as Rule 8D are applicable while computing the disallowance and the AO has to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies and also investment which does

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SICAL LOGISTICS LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

gains tax. Further, he submitted that certain investments are foreign subsidiary and the dividend received from foreign subsidiary is taxable as such Sec.14A have no application. In our considered opinion, provisions of sec.14A as well as Rule 8D are applicable while computing the disallowance and the AO has to exclude the investment in subsidiary companies and also investment which does

KEMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

248. It was further submitted that the assessee sincerely accepted the view of the AO and filed revised working of capital gains and business income. Nowhere in the assessment order or in the penalty order, Ld. AO found that any documents were concealed or suppressed by the assessee. None of the document was held to be inaccurate. All the documents

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

gain arising from transfer of capital asset held by the assessee. At Para No.3 of his reasons recorded, the AO concludes on the basis of the aforesaid facts that there is an escapement of income of Rs.1.45 Crs. It is pertinent to note that even though at first paragraph of the reasons recorded, the AO admits about the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

ACIT, NCC-22,, TAMBARAM vs. SHRI KAMAL CHILAKA,, KANATHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Capital Gain of Rs.6,46,02,771/- and also added non-compete fee of Rs.4,39,68,334/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. Before CIT(A), the assessee challenged reopening on change of opinion and CIT(A) held that there is change of opinion and hence, he observed in para 5 as under:- “5. It is hence