ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

249 ITR 306 (SC) re-assessment was based on the opinion of audit party was not permissible and was liable to be quashed. 7. At this point, it was informed to the Ld.AR that as the re-opening had two issues. One in regard to the treatment of the long term capital gains disclosed by the assessee as business income

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are

capital gains which were exempt till AY 2010-11. He submits that the assessee started to claim deduction under section 10(38) of the Act from AY 2005-06 and has been allowed in the assessee's own case both pre and post amendment of Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule and no appeal has been filed

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

capital gains which were exempt till AY 2010-11. He submits that the assessee started to claim deduction under section 10(38) of the Act from AY 2005-06 and has been allowed in the assessee's own case both pre and post amendment of Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule and no appeal has been filed

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 -

249 (Del. ITAT) O Ernst & Young Private Limited In Re. 323 ITR 184 (AAR) O Sundaram Asset Management Company Ltd Vs DCIT, LTU [2019] 111 taxmann.com 11 (Chennai ITAT) reference in this regard is made to Page No. 396 (Para No. 9) of the case law paper book. - Routine repair/ maintenance services and remote IT support services do not constitute

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

capital gains which were exempt till AY 2010-11. He submits that the assessee started to claim deduction under section 10(38) of the Act from 5 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance AY 2005-06 and has been allowed in the assessee's own case both pre and post amendment of Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

capital gains which were exempt till AY 2010-11. He submits that the assessee started to claim deduction under section 10(38) of the Act from 5 I.T.A. No.1759/Chny/19 & Ors United India Insurance AY 2005-06 and has been allowed in the assessee’s own case both pre and post amendment of Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule

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

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

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

gains were computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops. The assessee also stated that

KANNAN ASHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1545/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Kannan Asha, The Ito, Old No.6, New No.15, Ncw-1(1), Veera Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Akrpa 9370 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Act. Also, it is noted from page 12 of the impugned sale deed dated 24-08- 2016, that the appellant and the other three persons, viz; Mrs. B. Lakshmi, Mrs. V. Usha and Mr. B. Prakash, being legal heirs of Mr. K. BhoopathiChettiyar, have acquired the impugned properties comprised in Nanjai Survey No.s 58/128

DILIP KAPUR,PONDICHERRY vs. ACIT, NFAC, CIRCLE 1 , PONDICHERRY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 984/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dilip Kapur The Assistant Commissioner Of 7, Saint Martin Street, Income Tax, Pondicherry (Ut), Circle -1, Pondicherry – 605 001. Pondicherry – 605 003. [Pan: Adspd-4530-H ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024

gains and offered it to tax of Rs.13,24,121/- so this cannot be subject matter of dispute. The AO on merits u/s.147 passed Order dated 27.09.2021 considering the assessee's submissions and accepted the assessee's Return of Income. Hence, on merits there was no addition to income as assessed in the Assessment :-5-: ITA. No: 984/Chny/2024 u/s.143

KATHIRVELU SUBBARAYAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3854/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2020-21

capital gain in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee filed before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismiss the appeal by invoking the provisions of section 249

IMMACULATE JUDITH,NEYVELI vs. ACIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

249/- on the sale of immovable property worth Rs.2.01 crores. But it is noted that there are some discrepancies in declaring the Long Term Capital Gain. In view of the above, income is considered to have escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

capital gains of the assessee. 13. Now the question that arise for our consideration is, whether the material found during the course of search at third party premises viz., ::16 :: Page No. 61 of the pocket diary ID marked ANN/SK/SSSLLP/B&D/S-2 and the statement given by Shri R Sabapathy could establish any link with the assessee and whether it supported

SMT. SABAPATHY KALAISELVI,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Capital Gain on Sale of Immovable Properties to the tune of Rs.1,22,11,844/-. ii. Whereas the AO has not verified the genuineness of the money lending activity of the assessee by way of obtaining the required license of the assessee for the purpose of carrying out money lending as per Money Lending Act, 1957. As per Section

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

gains were ITA Nos.1164 & 1165/Chny/2023 :: 23 :: computed and the assessee requested for deduction under Section 54F of the Act, as the sale consideration received was utilized for purchase of a new flat, in which, the name of the assessee's wife was also included as a purchaser. The assessee further stated about the sale of livestock and standing crops