MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

section 42(2)(b). The computation, as set out in the respective assessment order, was as follows: Rs. Capital sum received 45,64,45,986 Total expenditure remaining unallowed 36,62,59,800 Total expenditure incurred in the business 36,62,59,800 Profits and Gains

BHARATHAN ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

45 provides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'capital gains'. Where the gains arise on transfer of a short-term capital asset as defined under section 2

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

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

sections": [ "250", "147", "2(14)", "2(47)", "45(1)", "45(3)", "45(4)" ], "issues": "Whether the amount received by a partner on account of reduction in profit-sharing ratio due to the admission of a new partner is taxable as capital gains

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

2(42C) was not fulfilled, then also it would not alter the nature of income i.e. capital gains but it would only mean that, the special provisions of Section 50B will not operate. In such a circumstance, the AO ought to have computed the capital gains under the regular section 45

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KANNAN SANTHANAM, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.636/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Kannan Santhanam, Income Tax, V. 401-A Laures 59-60, Non Corporate Circle 16, C.P. Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 018. Pan : Aahps 1094 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 45 ; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain. (2

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

2 which defines "capital asset" and section 45(1) of the said Act which provides for the levy of tax on capital gains

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

45,000/- 9,42,70,176/- 2,06,25,176/- Total 17,09,80,000/- 19,70,85,992/- 2,61,05,992/- 4 I.T.A. No.1207/M/17 When the assessee was asked as to why the value adopted by the stamp value authorities for stamp valuation as sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act, it was the submission

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

capital gains are liable to be assessed only under section 45(4) r.w. section 189 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assuming the view of the PCIT is accepted that the 11 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 firm ceased to exist and the tax liability must be assessed in the hands of the legal heirs of the deceased partner, then section 45

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

45 any profits or gains arising from the\ntransfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year, shall be chargeable to\nincome-tax under the head \"Capital gains\", and shall be deemed to be the\nincome of the previous year in which the transfer took place. \"Transfer\" is\ndefined in s. 2(47) and states that \"`transfer', in relation

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

45. Shri M. Swaminathan, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue, submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that provisions of Section 14A of the Act are not applicable to the insurance company. According to the Sr. Standing Counsel, expenditure relating to exempted income is not allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Therefore, according