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

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

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

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

IL&FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

250 / 2023-24 / Circle-1(1), Road, 1062048589(1) ITA-1694 / Chny dated 05.03.2024 Chennai S.O, 2 2018-19 / 2024 Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AABCF1176A] Both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are concerning same assessment year and hence for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated together. ITA No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years

SHRI RAMESH ALLADA,USA vs. ITO,INTNL. TAXN.1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

250/-. This property was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance vide settlement deed dated 04.11.2013 No.5847/2013 settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao. The said property was equally settled in the name of the assessee, Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni in equal 1/4th share for each of the co-owners. The assessee filed

SHRI SURESH ALLADA,AUSTRALIA vs. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -I(I), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 2, Wildcherry Street, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Maribyrnong, Chennai. Victoria -3032. Australia. [Pan: Bqppa-1954-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, The Income Tax Officer, 502, Roling Brook Ln Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Cedar Park, Texas, Chennai. United States Of America. [Pan: Bxwpa-5420-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit & Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Two Appeals By, Two Different Assessees, Are Arising Out Of Assessments Framed By Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

250/-. This property was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance vide settlement deed dated 04.11.2013 No.5847/2013 settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao. The said property was equally settled in the name of the assessee, Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni in equal 1/4th share for each of the co-owners. The assessee filed

SUDARSAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-18(3), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

250/-) being returned back to the promotor/builder, by 3 of the family members, the assessment of such sum as part of the sale consideration received in relation to the transfer under consideration and the consequential re-quantification of the appellant's share of Capital Gains would vitiate the disputed addition in its entirety. 7. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate

KESAVAN VANITHAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.2451 & 2452/Chny/2025 Kesavan Vanithamani :- 2 -: 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law in as much as it is a non- speaking order on the aspect of the Appellant's claim of exemption

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. The Ld.AR had argued two issues namely, (i) capital gains

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

CAPITAL GAIN Exempt The assessee has purchased one vacant land At Vijay Avenue, Kayarambedu village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist. on 29.04.2014 for 1097040 ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 14 :: 7.6 And the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have found that land in question i.e. 1.71 acres sold on 17.02.2014 was an agricultural land, after examining

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

CAPITAL GAIN Exempt The assessee has purchased one vacant land At Vijay Avenue, Kayarambedu village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist. on 29.04.2014 for 1097040 ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 14 :: 7.6 And the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have found that land in question i.e. 1.71 acres sold on 17.02.2014 was an agricultural land, after examining

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCQ-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

CAPITAL GAIN Exempt The assessee has purchased one vacant land At Vijay Avenue, Kayarambedu village, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram Dist. on 29.04.2014 for 1097040 ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 14 :: 7.6 And the Ld.CIT(A) is noted to have found that land in question i.e. 1.71 acres sold on 17.02.2014 was an agricultural land, after examining