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

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise\nprovided in sections [***] [54, [54B

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

54B w.e.f. AY-1970-71 and 10(37) from the AY-2005-06. These two concessions were brought in to protect the interest of genuine holders of agriculture land carrying on agriculture activity but such agriculture land falling within the meaning of Capital Asset under section 2(14) of the Act. Even these concessions are given, provided the agriculture land

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

54B w.e.f. AY-1970-71 and 10(37) from the AY-2005-06. These two concessions were brought in to protect the interest of genuine holders of agriculture land carrying on agriculture activity but such agriculture land falling within the meaning of Capital Asset under section 2(14) of the Act. Even these concessions are given, provided the agriculture land

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

54B w.e.f. AY-1970-71 and 10(37) from the AY-2005-06. These two concessions were brought in to protect the interest of genuine holders of agriculture land carrying on agriculture activity but such agriculture land falling within the meaning of Capital Asset under section 2(14) of the Act. Even these concessions are given, provided the agriculture land

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

54B w.e.f. AY-1970-71 and 10(37) from the AY-2005-06. These two concessions were brought in to protect the interest of genuine holders of agriculture land carrying on agriculture activity but such agriculture land falling within the meaning of Capital Asset under section 2(14) of the Act. Even these concessions are given, provided the agriculture land

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

VISHNU CHITHAN RAJAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2132 & 2133/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vishnu Chithan Rajam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 27, Old No. 11, Sathya Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Narayana Avenue, Off Boat Club Road, Nungambakkam, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Akcpr3287N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.V. Venkateshwaran, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 03.05.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Completed On 17.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Had Sold A Capital Asset On 2

section 54B of the Act. The assessee had invested the long term capital gain relating to section 54B of the Act to the extent

VISHNU CHITHAN RAJAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2132 & 2133/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vishnu Chithan Rajam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 27, Old No. 11, Sathya Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Narayana Avenue, Off Boat Club Road, Nungambakkam, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Akcpr3287N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.V. Venkateshwaran, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 03.05.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Completed On 17.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Had Sold A Capital Asset On 2

section 54B of the Act. The assessee had invested the long term capital gain relating to section 54B of the Act to the extent

KESHAV SUNDERAM RAJAM,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.780/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Keshav Sunderam Rajam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 27, Old No. 11, Sathya International Taxation 2(1), Narayana Avenue, Off Boat Club Road, Chennai. R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Atopr1473P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.V. Venkateshwaran, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai Dated 29.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Ten Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By 2

capital gain relating to section 54B of the Act to the extent of ₹.2.43 crores in capital gains account scheme

CHEYUR RAMAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, BUSINESS WARD - 2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2024. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-2008) Cheyur Ramakrishnan Rajkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.7/4, Meenakshi P.S Business Ward Ii(3) Sivasamy Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Accpr 4434P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Subramanian, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

capital gain without considering the explanation and the evidences submitted by the appellant. 16. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that when income is exempt, loss is to be ignored and hence the same has not been offered in the return. 17. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the order

LICKMICHAND ANAND SINGHVI,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CENTRALCORC;E-3(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

54B can only be a alternative claim. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of s.8,75,000/- made by the AO as unexplained credit, while the same was disclosed by the appellant both in his original return under section 139 and return filed under section 153A as agricultural income. 9. The CIT(A)-18 ought

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Gain’ because the consideration received was not for transfer of a capital asset held by the assessee; and therefore, according to him, it is assessable as ‘income from other source’ and consequently rejected the deduction claimed u/s.54 of the Act, and added Rs.1.45 Crs. as ‘income from other source’. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred

P. RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

capital gains in respect of property at Janakipuram,Madurapthakam. The appellant had objected to this stating that the amount received on sale of the land concerned was utilized for purchase of agricultural lands and exemption u/s 54B had been claimed The land was sold only because it was not fit for bio research, and because of the presence of endosulfan

NAGAPPAN SUGANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD CIRCLE-22, CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.591/Chny/2020 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Nagappan Suganthi Acit बनाम 3/261, Anna Street, Non-Corporate Circle-22, / Vs. Perumbakkam, Chennai-600 100. Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bzfps-2085-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl.Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 27-01-2020 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) R.W S. 147 Of The Act On 27-12-2018. The Ld. Sr. Dr Submitted That The Revenue Has Also Filed Cross-Objections Against The Impugned Order On 19-05-2023 In Which The Revenue Submit That Impugned Land Is Situated Within 5.1 Kms. Away From Nearest Municipality I.E. Tambaram & Therefore, The Land Is Capital Asset As Per Amendment To Sec. 2(14) As Applicable From Ay

Section 2(14) of the Act, the land should be situated beyond 6 kms as measured aerially from nearest municipality. From google map, it was ascertained that land was situated within only 5.1 kms and therefore, Ld. AO held that the land was a capital asset exigible to tax. Accordingly, the Ld.AO computed capital gain of Rs.137.18 Lacs

THARMIYA SUBRAMANIAN RAMILA,MADURAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(7), MADURAI

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3503/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thamiya Subramanian Ramila, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 391, K.K. Nagar, 8Th East Street, Ward 1(7), Madurai 625 020. Madurai. [Pan:Aehpr1869M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Latchana, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 226 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons That She Is An Illiterate & Her Husband Has To Look After The Tax Matters

54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 5. At the outset, we note that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income declaring a total income ₹.2,87,700/- and the Assessing Officer completed the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by making addition of ₹.3,00,900/- on account of claim