GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

capital asset.\nExplanation, For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression\n\"insurer\" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (9) of section 2\nof the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938)]\n(2) *****\n[(3) The profits or gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains tax is leviable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 45(1)", "Section 2(47)", "Section 45(3)", "Section 45(4)", "Section 9B", "Section 2(14)" ], "issues": "Whether the amount received by a partner on relinquishment of their share of goodwill due to the admission of a new partner is taxable as short-term capital

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

capital gains account on the presumed violation of section 54(2) of the Act was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 4

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

Capital Gain'. It is also seen that rental income under the head 'income from house property' in respect of 3 properties other than a self 'income from house property' in respect of 3 properties other than a self 'income from house property' in respect of 3 properties other than a self- occupied property is offered in occupied property is offered

ANNIRUTHA RAGHUVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allow

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

4 :: which impugned action cannot be countenanced because the assessee has action cannot be countenanced because the assessee has action cannot be countenanced because the assessee has fulfilled all the substantive substantive conditions prescribed u/s. 54 of the Act conditions prescribed u/s. 54 of the Act for claiming the deduction, claiming the deduction, barring the deposit of the sale proceeds

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

4. The AO, however was not convinced with explanation furnished by the assessee and according to AO, as per the provisions of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), transfer in relation to capital asset, includes (i) the sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or (ii) the extinguishment of any rights

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section (4), which reads as under: "(4) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

gain arising from the transfer of long- term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Further, Section 2(42C) of the Act defines 'slump sale' as a transfer of one or more undertakings for a lumpsum sale consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

4. This court is of opinion that there is no merit in the appellant/assessee's contentions that the occupancy rights are not in the nature of capital assets, the transfer of which do not attract capital gains, as to exclude application of Section

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

4,82,960 as long-term capital gains.\n2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. Before the AAC, in addition to\ncontending that the rights transferred under the document cannot be\nconsidered to be a capital asset, it was also contended that there was no\ntransfer of any capital asset. The AAC held that the term \"property\" would

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Capital gain and Rs.1,22,450/- as Income from other sources). The case was selected for Limited scrutiny assessment through CASS and issued statutory notices to the assessee and concluded the assessment U/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by the Assessing officer on 28.12.2019, by re- computing the total income with

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

4. The CIT (Appeals)-18, Chennai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.6,48,31,420/- as Long-term Capital Gains and a sum of Rs.4,74,82,926/-as Short-term Capital Gains in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai failed to appreciate that settlement deed dated

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

4,82,960 as long-term capital gains.\n2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. Before the AAC, in addition to\ncontending that the rights transferred under the document cannot be\nconsidered to be a capital asset, it was also contended that there was no\ntransfer of any capital asset. The AAC held that the term \"property\" would

CHANDRA BHAVANI SANKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 16(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Chandra Bhavani Sankar, The Ito, 1/3A, Vinayakar Koil Street, Ncw-16(2), Thalambur, Chennai. Chennai-600 130. [Pan: Aeypb 1764 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

4 :: after the date of transfer constructed a residential house in India and if the amount of the cost of the residential house, so purchased or constructed is equal to or less than the amount of capital gain. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee would be allowed deduction u/s.54F of the Act if he purchased a residential property

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

Sections 70 to 74. What the Appellant has suffered is a loss of capital which is separate from a loss under the head capital gains. The capital loss suffered by the appellate in the present case is a negative of the capital receipts. Since capital receipts are not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, the capital loss suffered

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

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

Sections 70 to 74. What the Appellant has suffered is a loss of capital which is separate from a loss under the head capital gains. The capital loss suffered by the appellate in the present case is a negative of the capital receipts. Since capital receipts are not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act, the capital loss suffered

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above, the following grounds of appeal are raised: 3.That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant. 4.That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

4. The learned Pr CIT ought to have seen that the assessing officer acting in accordance with law makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of judgment of the Commissioner for that