GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

section 2(47) of the Act.\nAccordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of ₹.2,38,63,452/-\nreceived from Elior India as income from short term capital gains and\n\n-7-\nITA No.1088/Chny/2025\nS.A. No. 48/Chny/25\nadded to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A)\nconfirmed the order of the Assessing Officer

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

51,966/-. This ground is therefore partly allowed. 6. Ground No. 5 is against the action of the lower authorities denying the weighted deduction claimed in respect of research & development expenditure incurred at the approved in-house in house R&D facility under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. 6.1 The facts as discernible from records are that, the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2 (47) of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O treated\nthe entire amount received by the assessee as short term capital gains in the\nhands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the\nCIT(A).\n3. The CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the\ndecision of the Coordinate Bench in the case

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

V RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

capital gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

capital gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

capital gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

capital gain is chargeable in view of supporting documents showing the subjected lands are agricultural lands, whereby, we deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 50 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Therefore, we find force in the arguments of the ld. AR about the availability of funds in respect of sale

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] vide assessment order dated 30.12.2018 wherein the assessing officer disallowed part of the indexed cost of land and building claimed by the petitioner in calculating the capital gains and also disallowed part of the deduction claimed by the petitioner u/s 54 of the Act. The said capital gain and deduction

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 45(1) of the Act is not attracted. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that, none of the Capital assets were distributed at the time of retirement and thereby there is no "Capital gains" that would arise in the hands of the Appellant. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred failed to appreciate

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

capital gains in the hands of the shareholders under section 46A of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the "distribution of accumulated profits to shareholders and the 'scheme of arrangement and compromise' is a device designed by the assessee" for repatriation of accumulated profits outside the country without paying

IDFC FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(2), HENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

51,188/- to Rs.1,48,04,175/-. According to the assessee, the CPC erred in computing the interest u/s.234C of the Act which arose in the 4th quarter only by including capital gains amount as part of the total income for all the quarters as under: Working of interest by CPC under section

IL&FS TAMILNADU POWER COMPANY LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORP CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1332/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Deputy Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax, Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Corporate Circle-1(1), 4Th Floor, Greams Road, Chennai S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1694/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Il & Fs Tamil Nadu Power Company Tax, Limited, Corporate Circle-1(1), Old No.21, New No.2, Kpr Tower, Chennai 4Th Floor, Greams Road, S.O, Nungambakkam Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aabcf1176A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri.Ashwin, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

section 43A with effect from 1-4-2003 and gain arising on account of exchange fluctuation is not liable to tax as it is on capital account. This case law is about external commercial borrowing for the purpose of acquiring capital asset. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that foreign exchange rate fluctuation should be adjusted to the actual cost

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-:

capital gains originally exempt requires to be charged in the hands of KICL for AY 1997-98.Consequently, as per section 49(3) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the assets in the hands of KOIL/PLI will be the actual cost of acquisition i.e. cost at which KOIL/PLI acquired the asset at the value as determined by Stamp Authorities

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

51% of the share\ncapital with corresponding voting rights immediately after such conversion, was\na transaction squarely fulfilling the conditions prescribed under section 47(xiv)\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was contended that such conversion, therefore,\ndid not amount to a \"transfer\" within the meaning of the Act and consequently\ndid not attract capital gains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

51. Viewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

51. Viewed from another perspective, even if it were assumed that the assessee had relinquished his interest in the trust, the computation of capital gains would still be infeasible. This follows the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1981) 128 ITR 294, where it was held that none of the provisions under the head “Capital