TRISHUL SHELTERS PVT LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed “

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from "other sources" because the provisions of sections

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

capital gains be deleted. 2.1 The first common ground raised in all these appeals is general in nature, requires no adjudication and accordingly, dismissed. The 2nd common ground relates to disallowance of commission/professional fees paid to Dr. S.P. Ganesan. The 3rd & 4th common ground relate to disallowance of loss on sale of share and disallowance of asset write

HUSSAIN MOHIDEEN IBRAHIM SHA,CHENNAI vs. JACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

Capital gains”. The income-tax is only one tax and levied on the sum total of the income classified and chargeable under the various heads. Section 14 has classified the different heads of income and income under each head is separately computed. Income which is computed in accordance with law is one income and it is not a collection

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

ACIT, TRICHY vs. P.MURUGESAN, THANJAVUR

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3), the same is confirmed. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to addition of "1,00,000/- made towards drawings. 15.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of "2,00,000/-towards low drawings

P.MURUGESAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3), the same is confirmed. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to addition of "1,00,000/- made towards drawings. 15.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of "2,00,000/-towards low drawings

SRI PONNAIYAH RAMAJAYATHAMMAL EDUCTIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, TRICHY

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3), the same is confirmed. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to addition of "1,00,000/- made towards drawings. 15.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of "2,00,000/-towards low drawings

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI P.JANAKAR, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3), the same is confirmed. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to addition of "1,00,000/- made towards drawings. 15.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of "2,00,000/-towards low drawings

ACIT, TRICHY vs. SHRI R.VISWANATHAN, DINDIGUL

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3), the same is confirmed. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is rejected. 15. The next ground raised by the assessee is with regard to addition of "1,00,000/- made towards drawings. 15.1 The facts of the issue are that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of "2,00,000/-towards low drawings

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