D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), 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.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gain from the sale consideration of immovable properties and direct the AO to recompute the LTCG accordingly. 11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.: 584/Chny/2022 FOR A.Y. 2014-15: 12. After the search proceedings u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 27.11.2013, many statutory notices were issued to assessee to file the return

D.RAMGOPAL,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), 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.: 583 /Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -1, Ganapathypudur, Coimbatore. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Principal Commissioner Of Shri. D. Ramagopal, V. Income Tax, 14-A, 10Th Street, Central Circle -2, Ganapathypudur, Chennai. Ganapathy, Coimbatore – 641 006. [Pan: Akgpr-3621-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. G.V. Jhabakh, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

capital gain from the sale consideration of immovable properties and direct the AO to recompute the LTCG accordingly. 11. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.: 584/Chny/2022 FOR A.Y. 2014-15: 12. After the search proceedings u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 27.11.2013, many statutory notices were issued to assessee to file the return

SARANGABANI KIRUBAKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1237/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Sarangabani Kirubakaran Dcit बनाम/ 17/6, First Pillayar Koil Street, Circle-1(2) Vs. Ekkatuthangal, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bumpk-0892-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, [Cit(A)] Dated 13-09-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By The Ld. Ao U/S.153C R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 31- 03-2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition U/S 69 For Rs.8.04 Lacs & Rs.5 Lacs. The Assessee Is Also Aggrieved By Computation Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of Rs.157.45 Lacs. 2. The Ld Ar Advanced Arguments On Merits As Well As On Legal Grounds & Also Raised Additional Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld. Cit-Dr

capital gains. The first appellate authority found that the land was classified as agricultural land and as per revenue record the land squarely fell within the definition of agricultural land and therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee. The Tribunal reversed the stand of Ld. CIT(A). Upon further appeal by the assessee, Hon’ble High Court of Madras held

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

capital gain added in AY 2014-15 was unsustainable, since it was not based on any incriminating material found in the course of search. The Ld. AR relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), which has since been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARVIND NANDAGOPAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-3(1),, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

gains, was based simply on conjectures and mistake of\nfact(s).\n15. Overall therefore, the Ld. AR contended that, there was not even an\niota of evidence or material referred to in the entire satisfaction note,\nbasis which any prudent person could have inferred that 50% of the trade\nadvances given by the companies had been received back and utilized

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. ACL INDUSTRIES LIMITED , COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company. For the assessment year 2016-17, return of income was filed on 15.10.2016 declaring ‘nil’ income under normal computation and book loss of Rs.8

SEERANGAN DEVARAJ,SALEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. SEERANGAN DEVARAJ, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

SEERANGAN DEVARAJ,SALEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

SEERANGAN DEVARAJ,SALEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

SEERANGAN DEVARAJ,SALEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

SEERANGAN DEVARAJ,SALEM vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

DEVARAJ ELLAMMAL,SALEM vs. ITO WARD 1(6), SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SALEM vs. SEERANGAN DEVARAJ, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

capital gain of Rs.6,47,891/-. This issue was not argued by ld.counsel for the assessee and hence, the same is dismissed as ‘not-pressed’. 15. The next issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) sustaining the addition made by the AO on account of difference in sundry creditors at Rs.55

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. A S CARGO MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and assessee are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1688 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1796 /Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Tax, New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Corporate Circle-1(1), Block, Navins Presidium, Chennai. Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] आयकर अपील सं./Co No.56 /Chny/2024 (Ita No.1688/Chny/2024) निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.S.Cargo Movers Private Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of Income New No.173, Old No.103, 9Th Floor B Tax, Block, Navins Presidium, Corporate Circle-1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aaaca7739D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.Quadir Hoseyn, Advocate & Dr.L.Natarajan, Ca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

capital gains was exempt under the contemporaneous India and Mauritius treaty. He opined that shares were purposefully valued at high price and that the entire transaction was a sham transaction done to evade taxes. He proceeded to add Rs. 15 Crs u/s 69 as an unexplained expenditure. Page - 14 - of 17 ITA No.1688, 1796 & CO-56/Chny/2024