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

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, 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, 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

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

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Capital Gains claimed u/s 54F of the Act. It is judicially well settled that the powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner where the order was passed by the :-8-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 Assessing Officer by incorrect application of Law or with incorrect assumption of facts or without

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

Capital Gain on sale of 1,34,63,935 1,43,14,139 property I & II Total Assessed Income 1,43,66,879 :-6-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that legal grounds are purely issues concerning the limitation prescribed u/s.153

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

260\n\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n\n- 22 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n5\nAtlassian\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\n\n6\nFlexera\nSoftware Ltd\n(Ind)\nUnited\nKingdom\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\n\n7\nMobile\nComplete Inc\nUSA

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

260\nCorporation\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n5\nAtlassian\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\n6\nFlexera\nUnited\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\nSoftware Ltd\nKingdom\n(Ind)\n7\nMobile\nUSA\nUSD\n4,900\n2,18,197\nComplete Inc\n8\nParasoft\nUSA\nUSD

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

260\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n5\nAtlassian\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\n6\nFlexera\nSoftware Ltd\n(Ind)\nUnited\nKingdom\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\n7\nMobile\nComplete Inc\nUSA\nUSD\n4,900\n2,18,197\n8\nParasoft\nCorporation\nUSA\nUSD

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

260\n| Corporation\n| 4 | Apnic Pty Ltd\n| Australia\n| AUD\n| 7,226\n| 3,28,677\n\n- 22 -\nITA Nos.1193, 1194, 1205 to 1207,\n1262 to 1266/CHNY/2024\n\n| 5 | Atlassian\n| Australia\n| USD\n| 5,139\n| 2,30,484\n| Software\n| Systems Pty\n| Ltd\n| 6 | Flexera\n| United

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

260\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n5\nAtlassian\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\n6\nFlexera\nSoftware Ltd\n(Ind)\nUnited\nKingdom\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\n7\nMobile\nComplete Inc\nUSA\nUSD\n4,900\n2,18,197\n8\nParasoft\nCorporation\nUSA\nUSD

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

260\nCorporation\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n5\nAtlassian\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\n6\nFlexera\nUnited\nSoftware Ltd\nKingdom\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\n(Ind)\n7\nMobile\nComplete Inc\nUSA\nUSD\n4,900\n2,18,197\n8\nParasoft\nCorporation\nUSA\nUSD

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

260\n4\nApnic Pty Ltd\nAustralia\nAUD\n7,226\n3,28,677\n5\nAtlassian\nSoftware\nSystems Pty\nLtd\nAustralia\nUSD\n5,139\n2,30,484\n6\nFlexera\nSoftware Ltd\n(Ind)\nUnited\nKingdom\nUSD\n8,592\n3,85,351\n7\nMobile\nComplete Inc\nUSA\nUSD\n4,900\n2,18,197\n8\nParasoft\nCorporation\nUSA\nUSD

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

Section 153C of the Act, as was originally introduced by the Finance Act 2003, which prescribed a stronger safeguard for persons who had not been searched viz., the seized material forming the basis of the satisfaction note must ‘belong’ to the ‘other person’. It was judicially held that, where any seized document of the searched person simply ‘pertains