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

capital gains of Rs. 1.84 crores on transfer of Current Assets. However, in the light of above principles, the First Appellate Authority cancelled the addition of Rs. 1.84 crores. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the transaction in question was a slump sale.” ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 43

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

capital gains and in the case of self-generated good will it is not possible to determine the same. The third reason for holding that the good will generated in a newly commenced business cannot be described as an 'asset' within the terms of section 45 of the Act was that it is impossible to determine its cost of acquisition

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

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

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

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

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(47) of the Act. 32. In the instant case, the recitals of the registered sale deed dated 14.10.2013 clearly indicate that the full value of consideration for the transfer of 30.35 cents of land to M/s.Jacaranda Properties Private Limited is Rs.1,00,44,000/- only. In law, the recitals of a registered document carry greater evidentiary value unless

PRICOL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCEL 2, COIMBATORE

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

capital gain chargeable to tax u/s.50B of the Act in view of the discussions above. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the fresh Assessment order.” Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

43,225/- to tax in its books of account. 14. Thus, it could be seen very early that the AO was in possession of information and evidence that the assessee had benefitted from bogus long term capital gains transaction from the accommodation entry provided by the broker Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is a known bogus entry operator. The said

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

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.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

43,225/- to tax in its books of account. 14. Thus, it could be seen very early that the AO was in possession of information and evidence that the assessee had benefitted from bogus long term capital gains transaction from the accommodation entry provided by the broker Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is a known bogus entry operator. The said

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

43,225/- to tax in its books of account. 14. Thus, it could be seen very early that the AO was in possession of information and evidence that the assessee had benefitted from bogus long term capital gains transaction from the accommodation entry provided by the broker Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is a known bogus entry operator. The said

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

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.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

43,225/- to tax in its books of account. 15. Thus, it could be seen very early that the AO was in possession of information and evidence that the assessee had benefitted from bogus long term capital gains transaction from the accommodation entry provided by the broker Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is a known bogus entry operator. The said

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

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.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

43,225/- to tax in its books of account. 14. Thus, it could be seen very early that the AO was in possession of information and evidence that the assessee had benefitted from bogus long term capital gains transaction from the accommodation entry provided by the broker Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan, who is a known bogus entry operator. The said

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

gains arising from the said transaction were rightly taxed. This\ndecision has been cited without comment by Kanga and Palkhivala in\ntheir commentary on the Law of Income-tax (7th Edition) at page 550\nand no contrary case has been cited in the said text book or has been\nbrought to our attention. It is true that the decision

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

43-44/Chny/18 prescribed u/s 2(14) of the Act by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 69. The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, at the outset, submits the legal background of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains

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

43-44/Chny/18 prescribed u/s 2(14) of the Act by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 69. The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, at the outset, submits the legal background of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains

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

43-44/Chny/18 prescribed u/s 2(14) of the Act by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 69. The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, at the outset, submits the legal background of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains

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

43-44/Chny/18 prescribed u/s 2(14) of the Act by the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order. 69. The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT, at the outset, submits the legal background of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains

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

gains arising from the said transaction were rightly taxed. This\ndecision has been cited without comment by Kanga and Palkhivala in\ntheir commentary on the Law of Income-tax (7th Edition) at page 550\nand no contrary case has been cited in the said text book or has been\nbrought to our attention. It is true that the decision

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gain Rs.3,43,05,038/- :-4-: ITA. No:1755/Chny/2025 6. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with the following grounds of appeal: 1. The assessing officer has erred in denying the exemption under Section