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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

capital gain taxable under section 45 of Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a body of individuals, purchased two pieces of land in the year 1966 measuring 14.55 acres at a price of Rs.27,260

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

260, namely, Rs. 17,040 and after reducing this cost from Rs.\n5 lakhs, brought the balance of Rs. 4,82,960 as long-term capital gains.\n2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. Before the AAC, in addition to\ncontending that the rights transferred under the document cannot be\nconsidered to be a capital asset

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

capital gain taxable\nunder Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this case, the assessee\nbodied of individuals, purchased two pieces of land in the year 1966 measuring\n14.55 acres at a price of Rs.27,260

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 11B/r/w 11 (4) of the Act. The details of the 244 entities are as follows.” b) The Kolkatta Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vipul Patel Vs ITO — 110 Taxmann.com 215 at Para 10 held; “8. Coming back to the instant case, it is noted that the assessee had purchased 1,10,000 equity shares of Panchshul

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI vs. PVP CINEMAS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1058/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Pvp Cinemas P.Ltd. Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax Non-Corporate Circle-20(1) No.2,Harrington Road, Chennai-34. Chetpet , Chennai-600 031. Pan: Aaeca 8733H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

260/- by making various additions, including additions towards computation of long term capital gain and short term capital gain for sale of property. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority and the learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 28.03.2013 has dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards

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

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

Capital Gain for the AY 2014-15.\n\n4.0\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that the\norder dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld.AO is barred by limitation within\nthe meanings of section 153(3). It has been argued inviting reference to\nthe statutory provisions of section 153(3) as well as judicial precedents\ncovering the subject

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

section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (scanned copy is reproduced in pgae no. 29 above). 7.7 And the Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding of facts as under: a. The land is categorised as punsai land, that is, dry land ready for cultivation. b. The land is situated above a distance of 8 kms from the nearest municipal

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

section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (scanned copy is reproduced in pgae no. 29 above). 7.7 And the Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding of facts as under: a. The land is categorised as punsai land, that is, dry land ready for cultivation. b. The land is situated above a distance of 8 kms from the nearest municipal

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

section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (scanned copy is reproduced in pgae no. 29 above). 7.7 And the Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding of facts as under: a. The land is categorised as punsai land, that is, dry land ready for cultivation. b. The land is situated above a distance of 8 kms from the nearest municipal

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

section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (scanned copy is reproduced in pgae no. 29 above). 7.7 And the Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding of facts as under: a. The land is categorised as punsai land, that is, dry land ready for cultivation. b. The land is situated above a distance of 8 kms from the nearest municipal

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHRI GANGESAN SASEENDRAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2753/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2012-13

260/-and claimed the entire sale consideration as deduction u/s.54F of Income tax act, towards the investment in house property. The AO disallowed the claim made by the assessee since the assessee has entered into contract for construction agreement prior to one year before the sale of the long term capital asset. As per the details the assessee had entered

ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD1(2), CHENNAI vs. RAJAMANICKAM ARULSELVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

260/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on 17.10.2014. The case has been, subsequently, reopened under section 147 of the Act 3 I.T.A. No.479/Chny/23 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/23 for the reasons recorded as per which, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment of capital gains

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1914/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, New No. 21/Old No. 10A, First Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 04.11.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 13.10.2010 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.15,50,25,060/-. The Assessing Officer Has Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 07.11.2017, which is beyond four years, without mentioning any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) besides relying upon various case

MIRACLE OLYMERS INDIA LTD,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section SOC c Rs.61,74,630/- duly reduced by the Indexed cost of Acquisition of Rs.3,47,136/- and the Long Term Capital Gains works out to Rs.58,27,494/-.” 4. Subsequently, the PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 06.09.2019, vide No.C.No.120/24/PCIT-1/CBE/2019-20; wherein according to the PCIT, the Assessee along with its sister concern, M/s. Miracle Polymers India

MIRACLEE RECLAIM RUBBER COIMBATORE (P) LTD.,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section SOC c Rs.61,74,630/- duly reduced by the Indexed cost of Acquisition of Rs.3,47,136/- and the Long Term Capital Gains works out to Rs.58,27,494/-.” 4. Subsequently, the PCIT issued a show-cause notice dated 06.09.2019, vide No.C.No.120/24/PCIT-1/CBE/2019-20; wherein according to the PCIT, the Assessee along with its sister concern, M/s. Miracle Polymers India

SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains as claimed by the assessee. 9. Having said so, let us come back to the deduction claimed u/s. 54F of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee has purchased another vacant residential plot :-14-: ITA. No: 749/Chny/2020 for a consideration of Rs. 38,75,400/- vide sale deed dated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.VANNIAPERUMAL & SONS,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. PCIT-2, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated

M/S. V.V.V. & SONS EDIBLE OILS LTD.,,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

gains the actual cost on transfer has to be as it would have been had the earlier firm continued to hold the asset. The firm was not entitled to depreciation. Even after revaluing the asset the firm is not entitled to depreciation as there could not be claim of depreciation on self generating asset or goodwill. Regarding the self-generated