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].

71 Paragraph 16 of the ADP). He submits that the assessee (the legal heir of the deceased) only acquires the surplus amount after all the liabilities of the firm have been paid, which includes the tax liability of capital gains also and the assessee cannot be taxed for the liability of the capital gains arising out of the sale

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

71 ITR 433 (Mad) and Addl. CIT v. K. S. Sheikh Mohideen [1978] 115 ITR 243 (Mad) [FB]. It is true that in these two decisions it was said that unless the asset had cost something in terms of money for its acquisition, it was not possible to conceive of capital gains as envisaged by the statue though an asset

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

capital gains.\n2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. Before the AAC, in addition to\ncontending that the rights transferred under the document cannot be\nconsidered to be a capital asset, it was also contended that there was no\ntransfer of any capital asset. The AAC held that the term \"property\" would\ninclude, in the case of land

M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect of penny stocks; disregarding the direct evidences placed on record and furnished by the assessee in the form of brokers contract notes for purchases and sales of the ‘said shares’ of M/s. Shukun Constructions Ltd., copies of the physical share certificates and her D-MAT account statement

ALEXANDE ZACHARIAH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

71,600/-. Subsequently, he incurred registration and stamp duty charges of Rs.15,72,400/-. Thus, the total sale consideration for the new property was Rs.2,98,80,000/-. The assessee claimed deduction U/s.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) on the capital gains arising on the sale of residential property. The assessment was subject matter

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which excludes "Agriculture land", from the definition of "Capital Asset", chargeable to capital gains on transfer of such asset. This exemption of agriculture land from taxation existed in income-tax legislation from the 1922 onwards till date, with slight modifications made to the provisions from time to time. He submits that

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] vide assessment order dated 30.12.2018 wherein the assessing officer disallowed part of the indexed cost of land and building claimed by the petitioner in calculating the capital gains and also disallowed part of the deduction claimed by the petitioner u/s 54 of the Act. The said capital gain and deduction

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment

GOPAL SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

capital gains of "71,85,696/- on which he paid tax at the rate of 10%. It seems assessee had applied the rate of 10% based on Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. GOPAL SRINIVASAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for 16

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

capital gains of "71,85,696/- on which he paid tax at the rate of 10%. It seems assessee had applied the rate of 10% based on Section

ITO, VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. M/S. P.R. VENKETARAMA RAJA (HUF), RAJAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

71[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee72 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs.93,63,20,420/- arising from business succession is exempt from tax u/s 47(xiv) of the Act, and hence the provisions of section 68 are inapplicable to such amount. 4. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking section 68 of the Act, despite