ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. IL AND FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital account or on revenue account\nirrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the\ntransaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue\nreceipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case\nfor any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage.\nAccordingly, all the grounds

M/S. R.K. INVESTMENTS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-3(1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1159/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. R.K. Investments Dcit Ground Floor, Block-Iv, Non-Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ No.184-187,Temple Steps, Chennai. Vs. Anna Salai Little Mount, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafr-3413-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-08-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

282 SC. CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad). 23. [2023] 147 taxmann.com 469(Orissa) HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Commissioner of Income-tax v . Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Engineering & Medical Sciences • Where Assessing Officer during scrutiny proceeding had allowed assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 in regard to depreciation as application of income after conducting adequate

SOHANRAJ UTTAMCHAND ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 , CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1787/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sohanraj Uttamchand, Non-Corporate Circle – 2, 24/12. Raghaviah Road, Chennai T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aaapu7932P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Gain earned by the assessee as income from business or denying the benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act, and as well as with the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) who had sustained the addition made by the Ld.AO. 8.2 Further on examining the decisions relied by the Ld. Revenue Authorities we do not find much strength

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

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

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

282, GImpex House, Central Circle-1(2) Lingi Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAACG-2482-P (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) : (%&थ$ / Respondent) अपीलाथ$ की ओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR %&थ$ की ओरसे/Revenue by : Dr. R. Mohan Reddy,(CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date

ITO, TRICHY vs. N.CHANDRAN, TRICHY

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

Capital Gains) obtained by him due to transfer of his property. Secondly, the Authorized Representative submits that Section 54F does not postulate the subsequent user of the asset as a criterion for determination of allowance, i.e. it does not want such a residential property must be used only and solely for the residential purpose. The Authorised Representative cited the decisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. ARUNCHALAM VEERAIAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the revenue's appeal is dismissed and allow the cross objection\nof the assessee

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Jagadish\N\Nआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2320/Chny/2024\N& C.O.No.78/Chny/2024\N(In Ita No.2320/Chny/2024)\N(निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-2012)\N\Nthe Deputy Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax,\Ncorporate Circle 10,\Nchennai\N(Appellant)\Nvs. Arunchalam Veeraiah,\Nno.34, 14B, Beach Home Avenue,\Nbesant Nagar,\Nchennai 600 090.\N[Pan No.Aaipa 9044Q]\N(Respondent/Cross Objector)\N\Nassessee By\N: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate\Nrevenue By\N: Shri. P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. Cit.\N\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 30.01.2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2025\N\Nआदेश / Order\N\Nmanu Kumar Giri ()\N\Nthe Appeal Of The Revenue & Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Arising\Nout Of The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals),\Nnfac, Delhi (In Short The `Ld. Cit(A)"). The Assessment Order U/S 144 R.W.S 147 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Was Passed Vide Order Dated\N19.12.2019.\N\N2.\Nthe Registry Has Noted Delay Of 14 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.\Nconsidering Reasons Stated In The Affidavit By The Revenue, We Condone The Delay\Nand Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.\N\N3.\Ngrounds Of Appeal Filed By The Revenue Are As Under:\N\N\"1. The Order Of The Cit (A) Is Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case\Nand Provisions Of Income Tax Act 1961.\N2. The Id. Cit (A) Erred To Hold That The Notice U/S 148 Was Sent For The Service\Nafter 10 Months Delay & Holding The Assessment Order Dated 19.12.2019 As Time\Nbarred.\N2.

capital gains on\nsale of property at Abhiramapuram in Paragraph 5.1 without assigning proper\nreasons and justification.\n7) The NFAC failed to appreciate that in any event, the entire re-computation of\nLTCG on various facets was wrong, incorrect, invalid and not sustainable both on\nfacts and in law.\n8) The Cross Objector/Assessee craves leave to file additional grounds

K.K.SRINIVASAN,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Capital Gain Scheme should have been made prior to due date under section 139(1) is untenable (259 CTR 388 P&H) - Copy enclosed. (b) Investment under section 54 B can be made within the period prescribed by Section 139(4) - 172 TTJ 412 Jp, 173 TTJ 634 Chd, 125 DTR 314 Chd. Assessee had specifically relied on the judgment

OLYMPIA TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4 , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 1, Sidco Income Tax, Chennai-4, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aabco8102F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -4, Chennai, Dated 25.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

capital gain. Hence the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent if such amalgamation has not taken place. 7 I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/22 Accordingly, as per the 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii), the aggregate 15. deduction in respect of depreciation on any tangible or intangible assets allowable

TRIVITRON HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gain. Hence, the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent if such amalgamation has not taken place. The Assessing Officer made a reference to 5th proviso to Section 32 in para as under: As highlighted above, the company paid Rs.180.52 Crores in the preceding year as consideration for acquiring

TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

gain. Hence the claim of depreciation on the assets acquired under the scheme of amalgamation is restricted only to the extent 6 such amalgamation has not taken place. The Assessing Officer made a reference to filth proviso to Section 32 in para asunder: As highlighted above the company paid Rs.180.52 Crores in the preceding year as consideration for acquiring shares

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains arising on sale of shares of Prizm Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. As regards to the claim of loss towards exchange fluctuation on deferred receivables, it is submitted that no claim for deduction was made, therefore the question of disallowance does not arise. Further, it was contented that the issue sought to be revised were examined by the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. PINNATHEVAR PALANICHAMY, MADURAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection filed\nby the assessee are dismissed

capital gains.\nPer contra, the Ld. AR for the assessee supported the order of the\nLd. CIT(A). He first invited our attention to relevant Page No. 61 of the\nseized pocket ID marked Annexure ANN/SK/SSSLLP/B&D/S-2, basis which\nthe impugned addition was made by the AO. He pointed out that, the\nnotings starts with figure of 25.00 and underneath

RAJKUMAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4, CHENAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

282). Similar principal has been followed in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

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

282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express

CHARLES MOPUR ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD - 1 (1) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1000/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Charles Mopur, The Income Tax Officer Old No.9, New No.27, Vs. (International Taxation), Lourdes Cottage, Railway Colony, Ward-I(1), Chennai. Chennai – 600 029. [Pan: Akjpc-6627-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2023

capital gains and Rs. 82,86,700/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act towards the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. 4. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.10.2022 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

282 11. 20.01.2022 Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act 285 12. 09.02.2022 Reply to the Notice under Section 142(1) of the 287 Act dated 20.01.2022 13. - Annual report for Assessment Year: 2020 – 21 293 14. - Details of ICDS compliance 456 15. - Details of creditors 461 16. - Details of borrowings 466 17. - Details

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

282, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word 'profits' in the proviso to section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word 'loss' in the new proviso. We express