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

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. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

256(1) of the Act :\n\"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the\ninstrument of lease dated September 10, 1970, effected the transfer of\na capital asset within the meaning of s. 45 of the Income-tax Act,\n1961, and, accordingly, liable to capital gains tax ?\n2. Whether, on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital having face value of Rs.10 at a premium of Rs. 142 per share. The PCIT in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act directed the AO to redo the original assessment after verifying the taxability of share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. In the proceedings u/s 143(3) / 263, the assessee filed a valuation report

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

256 shares should not be treated as purchase for\ninadequate consideration.\nAns\nGiven the inability the sell the business as a whole, an option that\nwas presented was to divide the business into 2 wherein Peepul Capital could\nmove forward with the QSR assets that it believed it could monetize. The\nstructure was arrived to reflect an equitable split

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

capital gains. While passing the impugned order, the Ld PCIT placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Apex court to support his arguments on earnings from business or income from house property. 6.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was vehemently argued that as the Ld.AO had not conducted any enquiries and investigation before

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

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of\nPr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 667, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI vs. M/S.GIMPEX LIMITED , CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the loss on forward contracts of Rs.10.83 Crores cannot be considered as speculation loss and outside the scope of provisions of Sec.43(5), without appreciating the fact that the forward exchange contracts issued by the bankers were cancelled by the assessee prior to the date of settlement. 3. The learned

M/S GIMPEX PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeals stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that the loss on forward contracts of Rs.10.83 Crores cannot be considered as speculation loss and outside the scope of provisions of Sec.43(5), without appreciating the fact that the forward exchange contracts issued by the bankers were cancelled by the assessee prior to the date of settlement. 3. The learned

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

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of\nPr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 667, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

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

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under Section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of\nPr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 667, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

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

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n\n-9-\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n\n- 9 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under Section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of\nPr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 667, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

256 Taxman 349 (Kar.) that\ndisallowance under section 14A beyond and in excess of actual exempted\nincome is per se asburd and hypothetical and it cannot be so made.\n11. Affirming the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of\nPr. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2017] 88 taxmann.com 667, the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court

M/S SHRIRAM PROPERTIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

2,67,93,481/-. The reconciliation of carried forwards loss and its adjustment and also the balance of loss available as at 31.03.2016 along with supporting evidences has been furnished to the Assessing Officer. From the above, it is clear that there is no difference in brought forward losses of earlier years as considered by the ld. PCIT. The Assessing