T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

250/-. During the financial year relevant to assessment year 2014- 15, the appellant had claimed capital loss and set off against long term capital gain. The AO, called upon the assessee to file necessary details and justify set off of capital loss against :-3-: ITA. No:1596/Chny/2019 capital gain. In response, the assessee submitted that, on 14.08.2013 he had transferred

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

capital gains tax is leviable. The amount received by the assessee was a consequence of this realignment, not a taxable event.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Gains [As per Section 45(2) of the Act] Investment Investment directly inherited Particulars held by on merger Total assessee of ASL to assessee A) Long-term (LT) investment: % share in ownership interest(LT in nature) 1.59% 46.93% 48.52% Cost of acquisition 747.58 22.108.55 22,856.13 Indexed Cost of acquisition [upto

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"the\nAct\") dated 26.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee\nraised the following ground of appeal:\n“1. The order of the ld CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and\ncircumstances of the case.\n2 The ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made

C.ARYAMA SUNDARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act. :-2-: I.T.A. No.1208/Mds/2015 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds: 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer, relating to the computation of Long Term Capital Gains arising on the sale of property of the appellant, and situate at No. 137, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

250 ITR 141 under identical circumstances had held as follows: “3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In this appeal, it has been stated that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income on the ground that additions could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

250 ITR 141 under identical circumstances had held as follows: “3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In this appeal, it has been stated that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income on the ground that additions could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The legal heir of the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai dated 12.01.2024 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1059642460(1) for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, fact and in circumstances

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

capital gains account and further investment in residential property. 6.7.1 The assessee has now raised the issue of exemption u/s 54F before the undersigned and first the issue of admitting the claim u/s 54F is taken up. 6.7.2 In Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the Supreme Court held that

P.V.GOPALAKRISHNA,VELLORE vs. ACIT, VELLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

250 of Income Tax Act, Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA No.2254/Mds /2015. :- 2 -: At the time of hearing, the assessee has not pressed ground 2. no.3.1 and 3.2 for credit of TDS and also ground no.4 and made an endorsement in the appeal petition. The first ground raised by the assessee is that 3. Commissioner

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 45(1) of the Act is not attracted. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that, none of the Capital assets were distributed at the time of retirement and thereby there is no "Capital gains" that would arise in the hands of the Appellant. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred failed to appreciate

ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

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

250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263,\nor section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of\nappeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the\nend of the month in which such order is received or passed by the 30[Principal Chief

DR. PRATHIMA VENKATACHALAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2612/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dr. Prathima Venkatachalam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O Revathi S. Raghunathan, Vs. International Taxation 2(1), Chartered Accountant, Flat No. 32, Chennai. G Block, Re Classic Apartments, 68, Baroda Street, West Mambalam, Chennai - 600 033. [ Pan: Aqkpp 4278K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit

250 of the Income Tax Act. :- 2 -: 2. The only substantive ground raised by the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of cost of new residential house though the assessee has filed Return of income within the time under provisions

ITO, CHENNAI vs. RETTANAI GOVINDAN MUNUSWAMY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1085/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’). ITA No.1085/Mds/2016. :- 2 -: 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ‘’2.2. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither Invested the capital gain arising out of the transfer of the long term capital asset for construction/ purchase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

250 /\n1064440314(1)\ndated\n29.04.2024.\n2.0\nThe appellant Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal\nfor AY's 2013-14. 2014-15 & 2019-20.\nGROUNDS OF APPEAL\nFOR AY-2013-14 & 2014-15\n1.\nThe order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law.\n2.\nThe Ld.CIT(A) erred

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

250/- Unexplained Investment in Pallangi Village : 2,96,120/- Unexplained Investment in Vyasarpadi : 20,99,850/- Building Unexplained Investment In Kodaikanal : 1,50,000 Unexplained Investment in Vilpatti Village : 25,445/ Unexplained investment in Bank : 3,00,000/- Long Term Capital Gain : 10,92,758/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act by issuing show

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

250/- Unexplained Investment in Pallangi Village : 2,96,120/- Unexplained Investment in Vyasarpadi : 20,99,850/- Building Unexplained Investment In Kodaikanal : 1,50,000 Unexplained Investment in Vilpatti Village : 25,445/ Unexplained investment in Bank : 3,00,000/- Long Term Capital Gain : 10,92,758/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act by issuing show

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

250/- Unexplained Investment in Pallangi Village : 2,96,120/- Unexplained Investment in Vyasarpadi : 20,99,850/- Building Unexplained Investment In Kodaikanal : 1,50,000 Unexplained Investment in Vilpatti Village : 25,445/ Unexplained investment in Bank : 3,00,000/- Long Term Capital Gain : 10,92,758/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act by issuing show