DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. HUCLIN RESEARCH LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1238/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.97/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.1238/Chny/2019] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs M/S. Huclin Research Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), 42, Jamal Sonu Terrace Loganathan Nagar,1St Street Corporate Circle-2(2) 512, Wanaparthy Block 100 Ft.Road, Choolaimedu Chennai-34. Chennai-600 094. Pan: Aabch 6465L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector)

section 50B of the Act, and thus, recomputed net worth by taking into account all liabilities and determined net worth of Rs.1,16,63,941/- . 5 & C.O. No.97/Chny/2019 Therefore, he has recomputed capital gain

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

capital gains tax under section 45. The Ld. AR further submitted\nthat the provisions of section 50B of the Act relating

PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

section 234A, 234B and 234C are charged as per law. Demand notice u/s 156 is enclosed. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) – 3, Chennai. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed a detailed written submission in respect of delay in passing the order giving effect

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT LTU-II, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 147 of the Act and hence, the reopening is bad in law and (ii) the second issue raised is that the assessee filed complete details before AO during original assessment proceedings and hence, there is change of opinion in reopening of assessment on the same set of facts because no new material is brought on record for reopening

T.A.TAYLOR PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.622/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. T.A. Taylor Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.10/5, Royal Enclave, Income Tax, Besant Avenue Road, Corporate Circle 3(1) Adyar, Chennai. Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aaact 4165G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gains arose only with reference to first part, even though release of the second part was subject to the seller abiding by certain conditions of the slump sale agreement. :- 12 -: 7. Section 50B

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains on sale of asset "10,49,12,310/- being difference in value of sale consideration "12,96,00,000/- and net worth of assets transferred "2,46,87,690/-. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that as per Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clarion Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd the sale of ‘’project assets’’, being land and windmill

CHETTINAD LOGISTICS (P) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and Revenue are 22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1388/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gains on sale of asset "10,49,12,310/- being difference in value of sale consideration "12,96,00,000/- and net worth of assets transferred "2,46,87,690/-. The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that as per Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clarion Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd the sale of ‘’project assets’’, being land and windmill

PROFILE GEARS & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.286/Mds/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-2007)

50B. Proceedings u/s.263 was initiated and the CIT-III vide order in C.No.3033/12/III/2010-11 dated 07.03.2011 directed the Assessing Officer to set aside the original assessment order and pas a fresh order in accordance with law. In order to complete the assessment proceedings u/s.263 a notice u/s.143(2) was issued. During the course of assessment, when M/s. SRP Tools

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

section 90 (2), the provision of DTAA or that Indian tax law whichever is more beneficial would apply. e) The learned Assessing Officer erred in not giving sufficient time to collect the information‘’. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined 16. the facts, submissions, nature and purpose of payment. The assessee has incurred expenses in relation to the business

RANI PRINTERS P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.757/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Rani Printers Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 1091, Evr High Road, V. Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007. Company Circle V(3), Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaacr 1416 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 50B of the Act for short term capital gain. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer found that there was escapement of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. AATHMIKA HOLDINGS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

gainfully refer to the decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Summit Securities Ltd (19 taxmann.com 102) in the context of Section 50B of the Act regarding the computation of capital

M/S. AMBATTUR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains by issuing\ncompany in the garb of capital receipts. In the instant case, not only that the\nfair market value is supported by independent valuer report, the allotment\nhas been made to the existing shareholder holding 100% equity and\ntherefore, there is no change in the interest or control over the money by\nsuch issuance of shares. The object

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PRUDENTIAL SUGAR CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITOOR

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2298/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Prudential Sugar Corporation Income Tax, Vs. Limited, Ltu, Circle -1, Prudential Nagar, Chennai. Koppedu Post, Nindra, Mandal – 517 587. [Pan:Aaacp-4338-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

capital gains through slump sale u/s.50(B) of the Act by transferring an undertaking on a slump sale basis to M/s.Netam Sugar Private Limited in terms of the order dated 21.03.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As per the report of an accountant in Form No.3CEA under sub section (3) of section 50B

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. M/S. DRS INDUSTRIES LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2727/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.176/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No.2727/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

50B(1) of the Act, profit arising from slump sale was chargeable to tax as capital gains arising from transfer of long-term capital assets. The A.O. also noted that the assessee had not filed audit report in Form No.3CEA as mandated under Section

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

gain of Rs.90,47,68,333/-.\n9.2\nThe AO in the course of assessment is noted to have taken\ncognizance of the above narrated facts relating to the sale of windmill\ndivision by the assessee. According to the AO, in order to qualify as\n`slump sale' under section 2(42C) of the Act, one of the conditions

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

capital gains will arise. The tax would be deducted at source on difference between the bid price and the redemption price at the time of maturity. The Para-8 of the Circular provides that the difference between the bid price of a deep discount bonds and its redemption price which is actually paid the time of maturity, will continue