RENOWNED ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1267/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

55A. However, we find no provision (in Chapter IV-E), save s. 50D, deeming the f.m.v. as the full value of the consideration, which only is to be adopted for computing capital gains. Section

DORAISWAMY SURESH (HUF),COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain. According to the Principal CIT, there is difference between sale value shown in registered document, when compared to guideline value of property. If you compare difference arrived at by the Principal CIT, it is less than specified percentage allowed under the Act, in terms of provisions of section 50C(3) and 55A

G.C.SIVARAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2946/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr.G.C.Sivaraj, V. The Dy. Commissioner Of 21, Prem Nivas, Income Tax, Psg Estate Colony, Peelamedu, Non-Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Bqips 4795 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gain on sale of land and (ii) deduction u/s.54F of actual expenditure incurred on improvement of residential building against the appellant and dismissing the appeal. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessing officer's action in adopting the FMV as on 01.04.1981 of 9.37 acres of land as Rs.1,04,93,894/- (at :: 2 :: the rate

REVATHI SAMUEL,SALEM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-2(1), 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.1285/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Revathi Samuel, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 10A, Ramakrishna Road, International Taxation 2(1) Sreerangapalayam, Chennai. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Acxps 8637C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

section 153(3) is directory instead of mandatory. 1.4. The CIT(A) after having noted that the order was passed beyond the period of limitation, ought to have held it a nullity. 2. Adoption of FMV of land and non-reference u/s 55A 2.1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the rejection by the AO of the reasonable FMV adopted

SUBASH SUBRAMANIAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

Section (3) to Sec. 50C of the Act clearly mandates adoption of the value fixed by the DVO when such value was less than what was adopted by the Revenue authorities for fixing the stamp value. Admittedly, DVO had taken FMV at "74,76,054/- which was less than the value of "78,70,203/- adopted by the Registration authorities

SEEMA RAMESH GIANCHANDANI C/O. DEEPAK MOORJANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.896/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Shri Seema Ramesh Gianchandani, The Ito, C/O. Deepak Moorjani, International Taxation Ward- No.9, Agastya Nagar, 1(1), Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Bozpg 1404 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Capital Gains (LTCG) at Rs.1,40,35,583/- and after considering assessee had offered Rs 83,44,090, he finally worked out the LTCG at Rs 56,91,493/-. Assessee objected before the DRP; and the DRP directed the AO to re-compute the LTCG adopting the deemed value of consideration to be at Rs.1,88,28,478/- [as valued

SARAVANAN PRIYA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW 15(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

55A of the Act, with a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset, the AO may refer the valuation of capital asset to a DVO in certain circumstances. In the instant case, the circumstance is that the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more

VIMALCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in WTA

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

section 55A(b)(i) of the Act, the variation being less than 15%, no addition was liable to be made and the valuation as declared by the assessee was liable to be adopted for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-4,, CHENNAI

capital loss qua an insurance company. In other words,\nSection 45 to 55A of the Act cannot be made available to an\nInsurance Company.\nReliance in this regard is place on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata\nTribunal in the case of DCIT Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd (2016)\n72 taxmann.com 116 (Refer para 9-9.2, Page