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 gains tax is leviable. The amount received by the assessee was a consequence of this realignment, not a taxable event.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "250", "147", "2(14)", "2(47)", "45(1)", "45(3)", "45(4

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].

section 45(4) r.w.s 189, the capital gains are liable to be assessed only under section 45(4) r.w. section

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

45, of which, we are concerned with sub-section (4), which reads as under: "(4) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

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

45 read with 48 & 49 of the Act. According to the assessee, under no circumstance, could the capital gains be re- characterized as business income of the assessee. It is noticed that, the Ld. CIT(A) had rejected the arguments of the assessee in the most cryptic manner by observing as under: “12.2.2 During the appellate proceedings, the AR argued

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 50C. The rights (towards occupancy) are nearly permanent, having regard to the nature of holding. Moreover

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. SATHYABAMA RAMACHANDRAN , ALWARTHIRUNAGAR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

capital gains tax could be applied under section 45. The appellant provided several legal precedents in support of their case: Sathyabama Ramachandran :- 5 -: 1. Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 261 SC 2. Rajendra Babubhai Modi (1993) 200 ITR 98 (Guj HC) 3. CIT v. P.N. Panjawani (2013) 21 taxmann.com 458 (Kar HC) 4

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

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)

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. 24. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The questions framed above are answered in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative. No costs

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

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

45 to 55. The said capital gains arise on a transfer of a capital asset. A loss suffered by an assessee on the transfer of a capital asset only can be set off against the capital gains. Such a loss under the Income Tax Act is called “Loss under the head Capital Gains” and it’s set off is governed

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

45 to 55. The said capital gains arise on a transfer of a capital asset. A loss suffered by an assessee on the transfer of a capital asset only can be set off against the capital gains. Such a loss under the Income Tax Act is called “Loss under the head Capital Gains” and it’s set off is governed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. DAMAYANTI RAMACHANDRAN, GN MILLS POST, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue for the A

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Chny/2025, ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16

section 45(4) of the Act says that the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset

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

4. The case was selected for ‘Limited scrutiny’ and accordingly the statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the :-3-: ITA. No:1755/Chny/2025 assessee submitted that the sale proceeds of the long term capital asset has been invested in a residential property within the specified time prescribed u/s.54 of the Act. 5. However, the AO denied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S RPP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section 80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. RP INFRA PROJECTS LIMITED, ERODE

In the result, all these four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

gains derived from such business for ten consecutive assessment years. Further, sub-section (2) of section 80IA states that the deduction specified in sub-section (1) may, at the option of the assessee, be claimed by him for any ten consecutive assessment years out of fifteen years beginning from the year in which the undertaking or the enterprise develops