INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 2 (14) of the IT Act the sale of impugned agricultural land, are allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by deletion of capital gains by the ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the us. 6. The ld.DR for the revenue assailing the action of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the deletion of addition of long term capital gain is erroneous

IL&FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital account or on revenue account irrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the transaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue receipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case for any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage. Accordingly, all the grounds

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)

46A considering that there was no compliance in course of the assessment proceedings and the said claims were being made for the first time before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that "transfer" includes relinquishment or extinguishment of rights and therefore reduction in the assessee's share of profits in M/s CRCL LLP amounted

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCQ-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 50C of the Act] at Rs.9,08,95,000/-; and accordingly, the assessee’s share/interest in the immovable property, ought to be Rs.82,63,181/- (Rs.9,08,95,000/11); and since assessee didn’t offer it for taxation, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2016-17 and framed assessment by computing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) from

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 50C of the Act] at Rs.9,08,95,000/-; and accordingly, the assessee’s share/interest in the immovable property, ought to be Rs.82,63,181/- (Rs.9,08,95,000/11); and since assessee didn’t offer it for taxation, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2016-17 and framed assessment by computing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) from

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 50C of the Act] at Rs.9,08,95,000/-; and accordingly, the assessee’s share/interest in the immovable property, ought to be Rs.82,63,181/- (Rs.9,08,95,000/11); and since assessee didn’t offer it for taxation, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2016-17 and framed assessment by computing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) from

PREMA,CHENGALPATTU vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

section 50C of the Act] at Rs.9,08,95,000/-; and accordingly, the assessee’s share/interest in the immovable property, ought to be Rs.82,63,181/- (Rs.9,08,95,000/11); and since assessee didn’t offer it for taxation, the AO reopened the assessment for AY 2016-17 and framed assessment by computing Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 1, CHENNAI vs. IL AND FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital account or on revenue account\nirrespective of whether it results in more tax or not. Consequently, the\ntransaction entered by the assessee would fall in the nature of revenue\nreceipt. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case\nfor any interference to the order of the Ld.CIT(A) at this stage.\nAccordingly, all the grounds

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MADHU PARASURAM, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 54F the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the cost of a residential house either purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or has within period of three years after than constructed residential house"" The above exemption is available only in respect of one residential

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPINATH RAMAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.292/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner – V. Mr.Gopinath Ramakrishnan, Of Income Tax, D-309, Srishti Apartments, Non-Corporate Circle-15, 14, Sri Ramnagar, Chennai. First Cross, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. [Pan: Aadpg 9081 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 54F the assessee is entitled to claim exemption on the cost of a residential house either purchased within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or has within period of three years after than constructed residential house"" The above exemption is available only in respect of one residential

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN,CHENNAI vs. CIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. MUTHU DANIEL RAJAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1675/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.Muthu Daniel Rajan, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.10, Appar Street, Of Income Tax, Kalakshetra Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), Besant Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 090. [Pan: Aadpd 9713 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 54F, and had denied the benefit of claim of exemption U/s 54F, amounting to a value of Rs 2,60,54,377/-. 3. The appellant had purchased a residential house at Besant Nagar in the Assessment Year of 2012-13; and to meet out the costs of purchase; had sold his lands at Kunnakkadu in this Assessment Year

BADRI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-2(1),, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1959/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Badri Narayanan, The Income Tax Officer, A2, Aishwaryam Apartment, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward -2(1), Tansi Nagar, Coimbatore. Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. Pan: Afmpb 8640N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Krishnan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. 2. The assessee had filed four grounds. The assessee has also filed a petition dated 04.11.2024 for admission of additional grounds challenging the reopening of assessment. The ld.AR during the course of hearing did not press ground Nos.1

SHAMIMA HASEENATHUL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

gain of Rs.7,86,00,000/- after claiming deductions of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s. 54EC and Rs.2,64,00,000/- u/s.54F of the Income-tax Act. She stated that the cost of acquisition of the shares as of 15.10.1987 was Rs.20,00,000/-. However, the AO noted that the company’s total share capital was only Rs.5

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. ACL INDUSTRIES LIMITED , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 2016-17, return of income was filed on 15.10.2016 declaring ‘nil’ income under normal computation and book loss of Rs.8

NAGAPPAN SUGANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD CIRCLE-22, CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.591/Chny/2020 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Nagappan Suganthi Acit बनाम 3/261, Anna Street, Non-Corporate Circle-22, / Vs. Perumbakkam, Chennai-600 100. Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bzfps-2085-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2020 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W S. 147 Of The Act On 27-12-2018. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Revenue Has Also Filed Cross-Objections Against The Impugned Order On 19-05-2023 In Which The Revenue Submit That Impugned Land Is Situated Within 5.1 Kms. Away From Nearest Municipality I.E. Tambaram & Therefore, The Land Is Capital Asset As Per Amendment To Sec. 2(14) As Applicable From Ay

Section 2(14) of the Act, the land should be situated beyond 6 kms as measured aerially from nearest municipality. From google map, it was ascertained that land was situated within only 5.1 kms and therefore, Ld. AO held that the land was a capital asset exigible to tax. Accordingly, the Ld.AO computed capital gain of Rs.137.18 Lacs

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), TRICHY vs. SHAIK ISMAIL, PUDUKOTTAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3170/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Shaik Ismail, Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Williams 383, East Street, Arasarkulam, Road, Cantonment, Trichy 620 001. Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukkottai – 614 801. [Pan:Aaapi2395C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.11.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 19.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 26.11.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting An Income Of ₹.1,24,41,730/- Which Includes Capital Gain Of ₹.98,07,591/-. The Assessee Along With Five Others Had Sold A Property Situated At Arcot

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2017 by arriving the long term capital gains at ₹.4,43,17,446/- 3 I.T.A. No. 3170/Chny/18 and deducting the long term capital gain of ₹.98,07,591/- admitted by the assessee, the balance of ₹.3,45,09,855/- was added to the returned income of the assessee. On appeal, after

ACIT CIRCLE 1 , SALEM vs. M/S AVR SWARNAMAHAL JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, SALEM

The appeals stand partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

46A of the Income-tax Act to verify the fresh claim filed before the CIT(A) with regard to the calculation of Amortization expenditure. (iii) The CIT(A) failed to consider the Board's Circulars regarding deduction of TDS on debenture bonds. The said circulars are relevant for Public Limited companies with wide participation by public where the payee