ANNIRUTHA RAGHUVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allow

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 54 of the Act to the assessee and accordingly delete the addition made by him which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income him which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income him which was further sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. Since, the assessee has constructed the new residential house

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

6. Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of Basis of forming reasons to believe and details of escapement of income: The details with regards to sale consideration of the capital income: The details with regards to sale consideration of the capital income: The details with

T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

section 48 r.w.s. 50C of the Act. The computation of capital gain in the case of the assessee is further strengthened by the fact includes exchange of the asset. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is correct in adopting the difference between the sale consideration u/s. 50C and the indexed cost of acquisition as the taxable capital gains. Respectfully drawing the principle

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

6) of section 159. 11. He argued that even as per section 45(4) r.w.s 189, the capital gains are liable

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

6 of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 8. Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is against the disallowance of the quality assurance / consultancy fees paid to non-resident individual in Japan u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS. ITA Nos.2330 & 2618/Chny/2019 (AY 2015-16) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 16 :: 8.1 The AO disallowed

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

capital gain on the amounts credited to the\npartners' current account as a consideration against the sacrificing ratio on\nadmission of new partner.\n3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:\n4. The assessee is one of the partners in M/s. CRCL LLP [CRCL], a\nLimited Liability Partnership (LLP). The firm was incorporated on\n15.07.2016 with an objective

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

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 263 of the Act, considered the order of assessment passed by AO, U/s.143(3) dated 28/12/2019 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and issued a show cause notice dated 10/03/2022 by fixing the hearing date as 15/03/2022 and passed an exparte order U/s.263 of the Act on 23/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order U/s.263 of the Ld.PCIT

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

capital gains and in the case of self-generated good will it is not possible to determine the same. The third reason for holding that the good will generated in a newly commenced business cannot be described as an 'asset' within the terms of section 45 of the Act was that it is impossible to determine its cost of acquisition

CHANDRA BHAVANI SANKAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 16(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Shri Chandra Bhavani Sankar, The Ito, 1/3A, Vinayakar Koil Street, Ncw-16(2), Thalambur, Chennai. Chennai-600 130. [Pan: Aeypb 1764 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section Shri Chandra Bhavani Sankar :: 6

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

6. The procedure for block assessment is indicated in section 158BC. The said provision reads as follows :…… The assessment of ‘undisclosed income’ as defined in section 158B(b) is only relatable to material found as a result of search. Unless the materials are unearthed as a result of search, there is no question of assessment of undisclosed income in terms

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

6. The procedure for block assessment is indicated in section 158BC. The said provision reads as follows :…… The assessment of ‘undisclosed income’ as defined in section 158B(b) is only relatable to material found as a result of search. Unless the materials are unearthed as a result of search, there is no question of assessment of undisclosed income in terms

LATE S. YOGARATHINAM, REP. BY L/H Y. SHANMUGA DURAI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:626/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 Shri Y. Shanmuga Durai, L/H Of Acit Late S.Yogarathinam Vs. Circle -1(2) Old No.24, No.14, Chennai. 17/24, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Pan: Aakpy-9845-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

Capital Gains on such transfer, the consequential computation of LTCG & STCG on various facets was wrong, erroneous, incorrect, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 6. The CIT (Appeals) -18, Chennai failed to appreciate that a deed of settlement would not attract the charging provisions of Section

RANJIT V SRIVATSAA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains would invest same by constructing a residential house and if is able to establish that the investment of the net consideration within the stipulated period, he would be entitled to get the benefit of Section 54F. 6

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above, the following grounds of appeal are raised: 3.That the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant. 4.That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified

ARTHUR JAGARAJ DEVAPRAGASAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:710/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Jagaraj Devapragasam, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-5, Marble Arch Apartments, Vs. Income Tax, No.2 Valliammal Street, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Chennai. [Pan: Acypa-9529-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025

capital gain a/c. as per section 54(2) of the Act. 6. In line with the proviso to section 54(2), since

PRICOL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCEL 2, COIMBATORE

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

capital gains in the case of transfer of assets/undertaking, the gain on transfer was excluded in the statement of total income to be separately assessed under Section SOB of the Income-Tax Act. With regard to application of Section 115JB of the Income-Tax Act the Assessee has offered the same for tax and paid the taxes

SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Further, in the case of Pr.CIT v 15th Prabha Jain dated September 2021 (indiarnkanoon.org/doc/ 697648699/), the Court upheld the addition made u/s.68 in respect of claim of exemption from bogus capital gain u/s.10(38) of the I.T. Act. In this case also, the subject sale for claiming bogus capital gain exemption pertained