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

Section 50C, the prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to sale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred for a finite period. In this context, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court (supra) has clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and thus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 14. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C

SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 14. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

capital gain computation, as made by the Assessing Officer, thus stands disapproved. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 14. The ratio laid down in the above decision is that the rational for holding newly inserted proviso to sub-section (1) to section 50C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NCC3(1) CHENNAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. SHRI VENKATESH MEGHRAJ KATHARE , ALWARPET

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:974/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Shri Venkatesh Meghraj Kathare, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.205, Old No.128, Non-Corporate Circle 3(1), St. Mary Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aadpk 5251E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061041943(1) Dated 16.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) Treating The Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain As Against Assessed By Ao As Short Term Capital Gain. For This, Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1) The Cit(A) Has Erred On The Facts Of The Case In Treating The Capital Gains On Sale Of Land At Tiruvottiyur High Road As Long Term Capital Gain Instead Of Short Term Capital Gain Without Appreciating That :

1(ii):- ii) The CIT(A) has erred on the facts of the case in non-applicability of provision u/s 50C of the Act on the sale of land situated at Seevaram without appreciating that the provisions of section 46(2) itself provide that the capital gain

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

Section 50C,\nthe prevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a finite period. In this context, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra)\nhas clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and\nthus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

1) provides for this tolerance band with respect to a certain\ndegree of variations between the stamp duty valuation and the stated\nconsideration of an immovable property. In other words, as long as\nthe variations are within the permissible limits, the anti-avoidance\nprovisions of Section 50C do not come into play. As we have noted\nearlier, the CBDT itself

RAMDOSS RAMVIJAY KUMAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14(5),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3096/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07

capital gains for transfer of property by adopting provisions of section 50C of the Act, by holding that as per provisions of section 50C(1

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

Section 50C, the\nprevailing jurisprudence is that, the said deeming fiction only applies to\nsale of land & building and not where only leasehold rights are transferred\nfor a finite period. In this context, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra)\nhas clarified that, grant of perpetual lease is a permanent transfer and\nthus akin to sale. The ratio laid down

PENUPETRUNI CHINNA RAO,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.401/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Penupatruni Chinna Rao Ito बनाम 8, Pughs Road, Sundaram Salai, International Taxation, / Vs. R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. Ward-1(1), Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aecpc-1481-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 04-03-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

capital gain in the impugned AY. F. The learned CIT(A) should have gone by the departmental principle declared in CBDT Circular No.14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.04.1955 that Officers of the department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to be rights. G. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that going

SOCKALINGAM (HUF),MADURAI vs. ACIT, CIRRCLE - 1, MADURAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1849/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assistant Commissioner Of Sockalingam (Huf), V. Income Tax, Plot No.423, Kk Nagar East, Circle -1, 9Th Street, Madurai – 625 020. Madurai. [Pan: Aaxhs-5962-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

50C value of the demised property was well within the tolerance limit of 10% as per the amended provisions of sec.50C and hence did not call for any adjustment to the returned value for capital gains purposes. 9. The CIT(A) NFAC further failed to appreciate that the amendment by Finance Act 2020 increasing the tolerance limit was a beneficial

SMT. MURALI VIDHYA,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-2,, KUMBAKONAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No.260/2016-17/CIT(A)1/TRY for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in re-computing the long term capital gains by invoking the provisions of Section SOC of the Act and consequently

SHRI PONDIAN MURALI,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, , KUMBAKONAM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No.260/2016-17/CIT(A)1/TRY for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in re-computing the long term capital gains by invoking the provisions of Section SOC of the Act and consequently

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

capital gains based on the stamp duty valuation. This deprived the assessee of the statutory right to contest the valuation before an independent authority. The violation of section 50C(2), being a procedural safeguard founded on principles of natural justice, renders the assessment unsustainable. ………. 28. In view of the above discussion, we hold that: i. The assessment order dated

SENTHIL KUMAR (HUF),TUTICORIN CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD 4, , TUTICORIN CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 653/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Senthil Kumar (Huf) Ito, 34B/4, Briyant Nagar, V. Ward-4, 4Th Street Middle, Tuticorin. Bryant Nagar, Tuticorin – 628 008 . [Pan: Abahs-1591-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023

50C of the Act. Thus, we direct :-11-: ITA. No: 653/Chny/2023 the Assessing Officer to accept deduction computed by the assessee as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act and delete additions made towards computation of long term capital gains. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 11th

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

Capital Gain [STCG] addition of Rs.74,36,863/-. 3. Brief facts are that the AO has re-opened the assessment for AY 2016-17 based on the information that assessee [Smt. Prema] in the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17) didn’t file her return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

Capital Gain [STCG] addition of Rs.74,36,863/-. 3. Brief facts are that the AO has re-opened the assessment for AY 2016-17 based on the information that assessee [Smt. Prema] in the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17) didn’t file her return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

Capital Gain [STCG] addition of Rs.74,36,863/-. 3. Brief facts are that the AO has re-opened the assessment for AY 2016-17 based on the information that assessee [Smt. Prema] in the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17) didn’t file her return of income (RoI) u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred