JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 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) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

capital gains. For the purpose of LTCG, the Assessing Officer adopted guideline value under section 50C of the Act as deemed sale consideration as against sale deed value and accordingly, the difference of ₹.2

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

2(14) of the Act, then computation of capital gains needs to be calculated in accordance with law. The AO has rightly computed capital gains by taking into account full value of consideration in terms of provisions of section 50C

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital of such subsidiary company has been held by the parent company or by its nominees throughout the previous year.]….” “…Section 56(2)(viib) 56. Income from other sources. (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources

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

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

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

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

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 of the Act as curative in nature, hence, having retrospective application. In our considered view

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

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

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 of the Act as curative in nature, hence, having retrospective application. In our considered view

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

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

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 of the Act as curative in nature, hence, having retrospective application. In our considered view

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains computation under Section 50C.\n13) The combined value of the land and the Hotel building with\nthe facilities is well worth the Rs.365.12 Crores and the total tangible\nassets Rs.470.11 Crores as taken by the Appellant and the value of\nintangible assets at Rs.26 Crores as given by Registered valuers.\nNeither the AO or the CIT(A) have

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].

2 of the assessment order under section 147 r.w. 143(3), dated 30.03.2022 and argued that the reason stated for reopening was escapement of the Income in the form of Capital Gains arising out of the sale of Land relating to M/s Baliga Lighting Company- a Partnership Firm, in which the assessee was the legal heir to the deceased partner

S.BHUVANESWARI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2944/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mrs. S.Bhuvaneswari Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Hallmark Towers, 4Th Floor, Income Tax, 550 (Old No.136) Ttk Road, Corporate Circle-1(2) Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. Chennai. Pan: Aadpb 1269K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain by adopting full value of 23 consideration by invoking provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act and further, adopting guideline value of property as on date of registration of property, even though the assessee has fixed consideration for transfer of property by entering into an agreement to sell. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt sale

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

gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble\nunderstanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of\nunintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes\nperfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of\ncompassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation\nbetween the stated sale consideration

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

2,02,35,151/-. Later, the AO passed rectification order u/s.154, enhancing the total income to `4,03,73,125/- by adding difference in capital gains earlier omitted. It is against the assessment of gain on transfer of land as capital gains by invoking 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 :

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

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 gain by adopting full value consideration in terms of provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act, but fact remains that the assessee has raised his objection for adopting full value of consideration in terms of provisions of section 50C(2

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)

2) is not applicable to the subject property. 2.2 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in considering the revalued amount as full value of consideration of Rs. 10,42,83,478/- while computing capital gains u/s 45(3) of the Act. 2.3 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering that the provisions of section

ITO, VELLORE vs. P.ANSAR AHMED, AMBUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 528/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009. Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. P. Ansar Ahmed, Ward-3, No.45A, Jalal Road, Vellore Ambur 635 802. [Pan Afopa 2704C]

capital gains. Now before us, ld. Departmental Representative relying on 4. Sub Section (2) to Sec. 50C of the Act submitted

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

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

section 50C(2) and renders the assessment legally unsustainable as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. In the present case, though the Assessing Officer did make the reference, he failed to await the DVO’s determination and instead proceeded to compute capital gains