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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

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

gains, was based simply on conjectures and mistake of\nfact(s).\n15. Overall therefore, the Ld. AR contended that, there was not even an\niota of evidence or material referred to in the entire satisfaction note,\nbasis which any prudent person could have inferred that 50% of the trade\nadvances given by the companies had been received back and utilized

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

ABDUL LATHIEF MAHAMMED ARIF,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-5(2), COIMBATORE

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

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

Capital Gains” in the hands of the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition, holding that the seized loose sheets and statements of the purchaser established receipt of on- money by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Authorised Representative (‘Ld.AR’) submitted that the entire addition is based solely on loose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would have entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the Ld. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with consequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc. as well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

R.VISWANATHAN,,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

Section\n132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would\nhave entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the\nLd. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with\nconsequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc.\nas well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE-1(4), CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

Section\n132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would\nhave entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the\nLd. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with\nconsequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc.\nas well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

Section\n132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would\nhave entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the\nLd. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with\nconsequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc.\nas well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, CHENNAI

Section\n132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would\nhave entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the\nLd. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with\nconsequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc.\nas well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

R.VISWANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Section\n132(4A) of the Act and hence these notings on stand-alone basis would\nhave entailed substantial tax liabilities on him. However, according to the\nLd. AR, what Shri CPA did not foresee was that he would be faced with\nconsequences under other regulations such as PMLA, FEMA violations etc.\nas well. The Ld. AR submitted that, the Revenue

PALANISAMY RAGHUPATHY,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and department are\nallowed or dismissed as per chart below

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

Capital/ Reserves/Loan/\nCurrent Liabilities\nLiabilities (Credit)\nImmoveable Property/ Loans &\nAdvances/ Shares/ Bank Balance\n21. The above view of ours get bolstered from reading of Explanation 2\nappended to the fourth proviso, which defines 'asset', for the purpose of\nfourth proviso to Section 153A, to include i) immovable property, ii)\nshares and securities iii) loans and advances & iv) Deposit in bank

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

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

capital gain on sale of shares in the hands of the assessee in AY 2014-15. Being aggrieved by the order(s) of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We first take up the assessee’s appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRLCE -3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. P.P. CONSTRUCTIONS, KARUR

gained any advantage by instituting the\nappeals belatedly. Accordingly, the delay is hereby condoned. In\nrespect of the remaining assessees, there is no delay in filing the\nappeals, and proof of receipt of the orders of the ld. CIT(A) has\nbeen duly enclosed with Form No. 36.\nFurther, since all the 61 appeals arise out of the same search