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, [***], [54D

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

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