BHARATHAN ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

250 x 852/100 = 21,23,610/3 Cost of acquisition: Rs.8,52,000-00 Rs.15,59,870-00 Building (estimated cost of building) (Rs.1,00,000/-): 1,00,000 x 852/100 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN A/c - Rs.56,16,130-00 Deposited in Capital Gain A/c Rs.57,00,000-00 - Investment in New Property (Advance) Rs.3,00,000-00 Rs.60

MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

250, section 254………on or before twelve months from the end of the month in such order is received or passed by the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be”. Explanation 2 to Section 153 further provides that “where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub section (6), any income is excluded from

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(1), CHENNAI vs. REPCO HOME FINANCE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital Management Private Limited (117 ITR 169), Rule 8D is applicable in all cases wherein even there is no exempt income is earned. 2.6 The ld CIT(A) failed to note that the Board, vide Circular No.5 of 2014, has clarified that the disallowance is applicable even in cases where no exempt income was earned during the year, but there

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

gains of the undertaking; and (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance under section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions

DCIT, CC2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

DCIT, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) 2. Since the issues involved in both these appeals are common, they were heard together. Both the parties also argued them together raising similar arguments on these issues. Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we dispose both these appeals by this consolidated order

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

1,00,67,969 Unbilled revenue 7,86,53,504 9,49,41,553 C) Less: Liabilities: Provision for expenses 14,24,593 10,38,85,171 B = a + b - c Net worth C). Capital gains on slum sale u/s C = A - b 50B of IT Act 90,47,68,333 9.15 The above computation of capital gains is also

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

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Before we advert to the grounds t Before we advert to the grounds taken in these appeals, it would aken in these appeals, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts o first be relevant

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘). 2. Before we advert to the grounds t Before we advert to the grounds taken in these appeals, it would aken in these appeals, it would first be relevant to cull out the basic facts o first be relevant

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 26.08.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee raised the following ground of appeal: “1. The order of the ld CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2 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

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

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

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

Section 274(1) provides for reasonable opportunity to be given to the assessee so that he can meet the charge. Therefore, from the above, it is very clear that the satisfaction arrived at by the AO before charging the assessee on particular limb of u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO must clearly record his satisfaction and such satisfaction