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

50C of the Act, has computed long term capital gains, after allowing cost of :-5-: ITA. No:1596/Chny/2019 acquisition of the properties and computed long term capital gains of Rs. 3,26,75,007/-. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 3.4 During the course of scrutiny, the assessee was asked to show cause why the capital gain

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

50C the date of transfer will be the date of agreement of sale for the purposes of 26 I.T.A. No.744/Chny/17 calculation of capital gain and placed reliance in the case of Modipon Ltd., 57 taxmann.com 360 and therefore the assessee contended that 31.01.2000 on which date the MOA was effected must be taken as the date of agreement of sale

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].

1) of the Act and this response has also been acknowledged in Paragraph 3 of the assessment order in Page 3 of the assessment order. It is only considering this submission; the Assessing officer has come to the conclusion that the assessee is not liable to pay capital gains as it has already been assessed in the hands

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

capital gains in the original return following the provisions of section 50C. Even during the original assessment proceedings, the appellant did not explain the reasons for deviating from the provisions of section 50C. The AO also did not either deal with the issue of applicability of provisions of section 50C in the original assessment. In other words

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. 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

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

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

SARRANGAN ASHOK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.544/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shri Sarrangan Ashok, H37/12, Gita Apartments, Non Corporate Ward – 15(1),. Kumanan Street, Kalashektra Chennai. Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aafpa6211N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1), Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘AO') vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed U/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.23,83,26,510/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Long Term Capital Gain arising on account of transfer of capital asset to the firm as capital contribution of Rs.23

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

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI vs. SUBHADRA RAMAMOORTHY , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

capital gains arising to the assessee Shri. TAS Ramamurthy was re-computed by the ld. Assessing Officer as under:- Amount in Amount in " " Sale consideration as per section 50C 13,88,97,000 12627 sq.ft. X "11,000/- Less:- Cost 01.04.1981 "35,000 per ground Cost of 5.627 grounds: Adopted at "1

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1) , CHENNAI vs. TAS RAMAMURTHY , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for 12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

capital gains arising to the assessee Shri. TAS Ramamurthy was re-computed by the ld. Assessing Officer as under:- Amount in Amount in " " Sale consideration as per section 50C 13,88,97,000 12627 sq.ft. X "11,000/- Less:- Cost 01.04.1981 "35,000 per ground Cost of 5.627 grounds: Adopted at "1

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Act and hence there is no change of opinion merely because notice u/s.143(2) of the 1961 Act was not issued to the assessee while processing original return of income , which cannot preclude AO to reopen assessment u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn by learned CIT-DR to Page No.5 of the Paper Book/Vol.III, where

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) of the Act and hence there is no change of opinion merely because notice u/s.143(2) of the 1961 Act was not issued to the assessee while processing original return of income , which cannot preclude AO to reopen assessment u/s.147 of the Act. Our attention was drawn by learned CIT-DR to Page No.5 of the Paper Book/Vol.III, where