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

capital gain in the hands of the assessee by giving indexed cost by holding that the lands were not an agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) further gone to hold that there were no agricultural activities shown by the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 23. Before us, the ld. AR placed on record agreement of sale

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

capital gain in the hands of the assessee by giving indexed cost by holding that the lands were not an agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) further gone to hold that there were no agricultural activities shown by the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 23. Before us, the ld. AR placed on record agreement of sale

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

capital gain in the hands of the assessee by giving indexed cost by holding that the lands were not an agricultural land. The ld. CIT(A) further gone to hold that there were no agricultural activities shown by the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 23. Before us, the ld. AR placed on record agreement of sale

ITO, CHENNAI vs. S. LAKSHMANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, Department appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojariआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2103/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri S. Lakshmanan, The Income Tax Officer, 99-46, C-3, Ashok Amoga Business Ward Iv(1), V. Apartments, 1St Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Chennai - 600 034. Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Pan : Aaupl 4308 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54 of the Act does not apply to vacant lands. Hence, he brought to tax the long term capital gains of `90,10,274

ACIT, CUDDALORE vs. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI, CHIDAMBARAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

274 held that the capital gains is not chargeable when the appellant has purchased the new property before the extended due date of filing of return u/s 139(4) of the IT Act for the purpose of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act. Utilization of the funds in constructing the residential house within the stipulated period should

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

capital gain of ₹.1,86,40,192/-. The assessment was completed on 31.12.2016 determining the income at ₹.1,91,62,741/- and a demand of ₹. 68,03,570/- was raised. Accordingly demand notice under section 156 penalty show cause notice under section 274

J.DEVARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT BUSINESS CIRCLE III, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George

Capital gain scheme account”. Considering these facts of the case and the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon’ble Apex Court cited above, we are of the considered view that for this small technical lapse of the assessee, the benefit of section 54 should not be denied. Section 54 of the Act is a beneficial provision and a beneficial

KANCHANA BAI CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

KANCHAN BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

ST. JOSEPHS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCOT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

ST.JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-193), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capitation fees, failed to disclose them, and did not meet the conditions for a reduced penalty under Section 271AAB(1A)(a). • The 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(IA)(b) is appropriate. Invalidating the notice on a technicality would defeat the legislative intent to deter tax evasion in search cases. e. Holistic Interpretation of the Notice • The notice should be interpreted

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

DCIT, CC-3 (2),, CHENNAI vs. VICOANS INFRSTRUCTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.3170/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 V. The Dy. Commissioner Of- M/S.Vicoans Infrastructure Income Tax, Environmental Engineering Corporate Circle-3(2), Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No.39, 1St Cross Street, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. [Pan:Aaccv 4087 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

274 of the Act suffered from an irregularity on account of the following: a. Notice issued did not contain strike off between ''and/or' with respect to two limbs onwhich penalty could be levied b. Assessment order passed had only mentioned penalty proceeding u/s.271(1)(c) isinitiated separately for concealment of income or for providing inaccurate particularsof income' On merits

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter

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

gains. At that stage\nthe aggregate of the incomes under other heads and the\nprovisions for set off and carry forward contained in Sections 70,\n72 and 74 of the Act would be premature for application. The\ndeductions under Section 10A therefore would be prior to the\ncommencement of the exercise to be undertaken under Chapter