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

gain tax to the extent of relinquishment of his rights in\nthe assets of the erstwhile firm in favour of the four partners of the reconstituted\nfirm. It is the correctness of this finding, which is before us.\n7. The assessees are sought to be taxed under Section 45(1) of the Act on\nthe ground that there

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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gain tax to the\nextent of relinquishment of his rights in the assets of the erstwhile firm in\nfavour of the four partners of the reconstituted firm. It is the correctness of\nthis finding, which is before us.\n7.\nThe assessees are sought to be taxed under Section 45(1) of the Act\non the ground that there

DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9(1) , CHENNAI vs. ANIL SHETH , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1705/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-2010. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri. Anil Sheth, Income Tax, Prop. M/S. Prince Marbles, Non Corporate Circle 9(1) No.34, Langs Garden Road, Chennai. Pudupet, Chennai 600 002. [Pan Addpa 3880A ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:” 18. Section 53A

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains earned by the assessee on the sale of land in the ay: 2008-09 owing to amendment in Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 by amendments brought by Registration and Other Related Laws( Amendment) Act, 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001. There were simultaneous amendments made in Section 53A

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains earned by the assessee on the sale of land in the ay: 2008-09 owing to amendment in Section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 by amendments brought by Registration and Other Related Laws( Amendment) Act, 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001. There were simultaneous amendments made in Section 53A

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 2(47) of the Act. In fact, the original building plan was not approved by CMDA. The assessee and the builder had to sign a supplementary agreement on 30-09-2013 in which there was substantial modification of the building plan. The original building plan was for stilt parking with five floors whereas the approved plan was for stilt

RAMAKRISHNAN PRABHU JYOTHI,,COIMBATORE vs. ACOT, NCC-5, , COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal is dismissed

Section 53A of the transfer of the property Act, it is entitled for\nbenefits of capital gains. It is also

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), CHENNAI vs. CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

capital gain on the entire transaction. The ld. Senior DR stated that all the ingredients of Section 53A r.w.s. 2(47) of the Act are complete

FAIZA HEMEED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to hold that capital gain accrued for the assessment year 2007-08 and hence by taking note of subsequent sharing agreement between the assessee and builders dated 10.07.2013 computed long term capital gain for the assessment year 2014-15. The ld.DR further submitted that as per the amended provisions of section

N RAMASWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 2(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1),exceeds(b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised by the assessee

M/S. BHAGGYAM BUILDERS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2614/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Bhaggyam Builders, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 20, Raman Street, Vs. Income Tax, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle -1, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai.

gain. 5. We heard the rival submissions, gone through relevant orders and material. The fact remains that Mrs.Sakunthala brought her proprietary concern into a partnership firm with her son and daughter during assessment year 2004-05 which comprised all the assets and liabilities including the impugned asset, and then onwards it was common property of all the partners. During assessment

MOHIT GUPTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO,NON- CORP WARD 17(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1847/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mohit Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, T45, Old No.T11, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 17(2), Vi Avenue, Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. Pan: Aoqpg 5419R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025

53A could apply. Hence, section 2(47)(iva) is not :- 4 -: attracted. Therefore, the appellant's reliance on this provision is misplaced, and the Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gains

D.KANTABAI ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 , CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1968 & 1969/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Ms. D. Kantabai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.13, South Usman Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar Non-Corporate Circle – 1, Chennai – 600 017 Chennai [Pan Aagpk 8590D ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Banusekar, Advocate Department By : Mr. A.R.V. Sreenivasan,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Appeals Against The Orders Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Chennai In Ita Nos.31/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & 79/Cit(A)-2/2015-16; Dated 30.06.2017 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13, Respectively.

capitals gains of ₹2,29,50,000/- to tax in the assessment year 2010-11. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the transfer has taken place in the year in which the joint development agreement was entered into. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed to appreciate that the transaction

D.KANTABAI,CHENANI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 , CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1968 & 1969/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 Ms. D. Kantabai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No.13, South Usman Road, Income Tax, T. Nagar Non-Corporate Circle – 1, Chennai – 600 017 Chennai [Pan Aagpk 8590D ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Banusekar, Advocate Department By : Mr. A.R.V. Sreenivasan,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman: The Assessee Filed These Appeals Against The Orders Of The Cit(Appeals)-2, Chennai In Ita Nos.31/Cit(A)-2/2016-17 & 79/Cit(A)-2/2015-16; Dated 30.06.2017 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13, Respectively.

capitals gains of ₹2,29,50,000/- to tax in the assessment year 2010-11. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that the transfer has taken place in the year in which the joint development agreement was entered into. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed to appreciate that the transaction

SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

capital gains to ".85,42,006/- invested before one year as against the actual sum of "1,21,35,203/- claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act on investment in new residential property. The ld. Authorised Representative supported the arguments with evidence and produced a copy of completion certificate, sale deed copy, proof of re-investment in new property

GURUPRASAD ANGISETTY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri. G. Pavan Kumar

Capital Gains Deposit Scheme. With these observations, the ld. Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s.54 of the Act and disallowed the claim with other disallowances and assessed income u/s.143(3) of the Act vide ITA No.1123/Mds/2016. :- 6 -: order dated 20.03.2013. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In the appellate proceedings

NARENDRA MAHENDRA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1006/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Shri Narendra Mahendra- The Income Tax Officer, Kothari, Non-Corporate Ward-5(2), No.76, Osian Heights, Chennai. Basin Bridge Road, Mint, Chennai-600 079. [Pan: Amopk 2535 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Arv Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

Capital Gain’ and also rejected deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT Jaipur :: 6 :: Benches in the case of Shri Ijyaraj Singh in ITA No.152/JP/2019 dated 18.06.2020. 4.2 The Ld.DR supporting the order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that as per clauses of Release Deed dated 07.08.2013, the assessee

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

gain arises for assessment on transfer of the land by all the assessees along with three others. We have carefully gone through the agreement dated 8.12.2006. Clause (6) of the agreement clearly says that the first party, namely, the assessees and three others shall hand over the possession of the property to the builder, namely, Shanmuga Construction Services. The period

ITO, CHENNAI vs. A.M.VIJAYARANGAM, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1396/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

gain arises for assessment on transfer of the land by all the assessees along with three others. We have carefully gone through the agreement dated 8.12.2006. Clause (6) of the agreement clearly says that the first party, namely, the assessees and three others shall hand over the possession of the property to the builder, namely, Shanmuga Construction Services. The period