ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 143(3) of the Act dated 31st December 2019 by assessing the total income at Rs.12,73,57,200/- under head ‘Capital Gains

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 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had also challenged additions made towards long term capital gain derived from sale of shares on the ground that although the AO has alleged that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus long term capital gain derived from sale of penny stocks, but failed to link the transactions of the assessee with

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 come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee placed on the record two sale deeds both dated 21.09.2006 which are at page 12 and 24 of the paper book, 40 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 wherein, the assessee sold

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 come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee placed on the record two sale deeds both dated 21.09.2006 which are at page 12 and 24 of the paper book, 40 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 wherein, the assessee sold

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 come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee placed on the record two sale deeds both dated 21.09.2006 which are at page 12 and 24 of the paper book, 40 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 wherein, the assessee sold

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 come Tax Act, is not admissible. 73. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee placed on the record two sale deeds both dated 21.09.2006 which are at page 12 and 24 of the paper book, 40 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 wherein, the assessee sold

M.K.VITHYA,THIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 5

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2739/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015

73,230/-, while computing capital gains arising on sale of a property. :- 2 -: 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had sold equity shares held by her in M/s. Aar Vee Hotels Pvt. Ltd during the relevant previous year for a total consideration of "81,00,000/-. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, whole of such consideration

ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2(1), CHENNAI vs. EUROFLORA BIOLAND PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

capital gains’ and loss from non-delivery based transaction and future trading of `38,65,615/- under the head ‘income from business’. The AO observed that as per Section 73

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

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

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

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

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

section (2), where, in the case of an assessee72 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 73

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

73,125/- by adding difference in capital gains earlier omitted. It is against the assessment of gain on transfer of land as capital gains by invoking section

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-1, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Cognizant Technology- The Asst. Commissioner- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, 5/535, Okkiam, Thoriapakkam, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai. Chennai-600 096. [Pan:Aaacd 3312 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Counsel For Shri N.V. Balaji, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R.Shankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor – General Of India For Shri A.P.Srinivas, Sr. Standing Counsel : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.07.2023 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023

section 115-O of the Act and the consequent demand raised by the learned AO are in contravention to the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('DTAA') entered by India with USA and Mauritius and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC). 12. Without prejudice

K.R.MURALIDHAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1097/Mds/2015 & S.P. No.338/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. No.1097/Mds/2015) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri K.R. Muralidhar, Old No.120, New No.246, The Income Tax Officer, Room No.24 & 25, 1St Floor, V. Non-Corporate Circle – 13, Govindappa Naicken Street, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 001. Pan : Aagpm 9070 N (Appellant & Petitioner) (""यथ"/Respondent)

73,345/- on sale of factory land and building at 141, Kottivakkam Village, Nehru Nagar, Chennai, Kancheepuram District. The assessee also claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gain in view of the investment in Rural Electrification Corporation Limited bonds and investment in residential house property. The assessee also claimed short-term capital loss

INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

gains tax under section 45 of the Act. Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act specifically excludes agricultural land in India from the definition of “capital asset”, except where such land is situated; 1. Within the jurisdiction of a municipality or municipal corporation having population exceeding the prescribed limits; or 2. Within the prescribed aerial distance from such municipal limits

LALITHA KUMARI PRAKASH CHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

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

73% undivided share of the land in exchange of 27% built up area for the assessment year 2012-13. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee had declared capital gain on transfer of 27% built up area for the assessment year 2015-16, even though, sale of flats took place right from assessment year