DCIT,CC-1(1), CHENNAI vs. UNIVERCELL TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.582/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner- V. M/S.Univercell Of Income Tax, Telecommunications India- Central Circle-1(1), Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. 281, Ttk Road, Chennai.

47A(3) of the IT. Act, 1961, when there is violation of the conditions of section 47(xiv), as in the instant case, the gains which were exempt should be brought to tax in the hands of the successor company which is the assessee company. 3. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. PRADEEP STAINLESS STEEL INDIA PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1750/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Pradeep Stainless Steel India Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd., Company Circle V(2), C-3, Phase Ii, Main Road, Mepz, Chennai - 600 034. Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. Pan : Aadcp 2554 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain has to be withdrawn under Section 47A(3) of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer had not considered

J.KRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 809/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

3 I.T.A. No.809/Mds/17 deed are not the same. The value adopted or assessable by stamp authority on the date of agreement has to be taken for the purpose of computing the sale consideration on transfer under Section 50C of the Act. According to the Ld. counsel, a proviso to Section 50C of the Act was introduced by Finance

K. CHANDRA PRAKASH,SINGANALLUR vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.228/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 K. Chandraprakash (Huf), Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Kathiravan Garden, Income Tax-1, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aajhk2315R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwant Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore Dated 22.02.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

gains and for the entire purposes of the Act and hence, the immoveable property which is not in the nature of capital asset is not taxable under section 56(2) of the Act. However, 'such a view narrows the ambit of section 56(2) and expanding the exclusion list provided in the said section. If that was the intention

ITO, CHENNAI vs. I.A.ZAFARULLAH, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

47A of the Indian Stamp Act and its proceedings were pending adjudication, the Government of Tamilnadu introduced a Samadhan scheme and the buyer availed the said scheme and therefore the registration took place on 07.07.2006. The assessee submitted that entire consideration was received in cheque dated 19.10.2005 and it was credited to his account on the same

RAGHUPATHY GOWTHAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 16(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 47A(1) of the Indian Stamp Duty Act. The ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act on 11.09.2014 by making certain additions, among which an addition of `37,56,602/- to the income of assessee under the head “capital gains