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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Thapar Homes Ltd (supra),\nwherein it was held that that once revenue decided to trigger penalty\nproceedings against assessee by recording satisfaction/finding of fact\nregarding violation of section 269SS, it is incumbent upon it to keep an\neye on limitation period prescribed

P. SUBRAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CRICLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

section 50C of the Act and brought to tax, of Rs.1,19,98,298/- as long term capital gain and Rs.5,16,528/- as short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the ld.CIT(A)- NFAC for all the three issues

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains, the Kerala High Court has failed to note that in a mortgage there is transfer of an interest in the property by the mortgagor in favour of mortgagee and where the previous owner has mortgaged the property during his lifetime, which is subsisting at the time of his death, then after his death his heir only inherits

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section-147 of the Act 1961’’. The ld. Assessing Officer on merits treated the sale of land as capital asset and disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee. In the first round, the matter was travelled upto the Tribunal on both counts i.e. on legal issues as well as on merits of disallowances. 5. The Tribunal in first round

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

275 equity shares of Rs.100/- each amounted to Rs. 1,75,27,500/- was credited to capital of the assessee company. This credit is due to additional allotment of shares worth of Rs. 1,75,27,500/-. Due to the above reason, the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.1,75,27,500/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before

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

275\n5,42,901\nLtd\n\n3\nSparx System\nPty Ltd\nAustralia\nUSD\n3,337\n1,47,984\n\n4\nXenos Group\nInc\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\n\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n46,994\n20,89,309\n\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria

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

275\n5,42,901\nTechnology Pte\nLtd\n3\nSparx System\nAustralia USD\n3,337\n1,47,984\nPty Ltd\n4\nXenos Group\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\nInc\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\n46,994\n20,89,309\nclause) (A)\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria\nEUR

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

275\n5,42,901\nLtd\n3\nSparx System\nPty Ltd\nAustralia\nUSD\n3,337\n1,47,984\n4\nXenos Group\nInc\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n46,994\n20,89,309\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria\nEUR

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

275\n| 5,42,901\n| Technology Pte\n| Ltd\n| 3 | Sparx System\n| Australia\n| USD\n| 3,337\n| 1,47,984\n| Pty Ltd\n| 4 | Xenos Group\n| Canada\n| USD\n| 20,132\n| 8,97,686\n| Inc\n| Total of payments (with 'make available'\n| clause

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

275\n5,42,901\nLtd\n3\nSparx System\nPty Ltd\nAustralia\nUSD\n3,337\n1,47,984\n4\nXenos Group\nInc\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n46,994\n20,89,309\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria\nEUR

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

275\n5,42,901\n3\nSparx System\nPty Ltd\nAustralia\nUSD\n3,337\n1,47,984\n4\nXenos Group\nInc\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\nclause) (A)\n46,994\n20,89,309\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria\nEUR

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

275\n5,42,901\nLtd\n3\nSparx System\nPty Ltd\nAustralia\nUSD\n3,337\n1,47,984\n4\nXenos Group\nInc\nCanada\nUSD\n20,132\n8,97,686\nTotal of payments (with 'make available'\n46,994\n20,89,309\nclause) (A)\nPayments made towards Software AMC - countries without 'make\navailable' clause\n1\nAltova GmbH\nAustria\nEUR

MANGAL & MANGAL,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

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.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued under section 153A

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Capital gain escaping assessment being the\nnotional profit on conversion of Rs.1254,289,672/- would work out to\nRs.42,63,33,059/-.\n11. As we see from the above reasons recorded by the AO for\nreopening assessment that there is no allegation that failure of the\nassessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for\nthe assessment

JAKHAU SALT COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, Of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.01.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023

gains’ from the business or profession. This view is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.(supra), where it has been clearly held that when investment in subsidiary company is for the purpose of its business and the loss on sale of shares

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