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 not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. 24. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The questions framed above are answered in favour of the appellant assessee and against the respondent revenue. The first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative. No costs

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

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

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

Section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2004 in assessing the Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.47,79,56,455/-. :-18-: IT(SS)A Nos. 153 & 162/Chny/2003 & ITA. Nos:744 & 2197/Chny/2005 40. The assessee aggrieved by passing of the aforesaid re-assessment order, had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had contended

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

75,080/- after making the following additions: a) Income from house property - Rs.1,34,15,885/- b) Income from other sources (commission) - Rs. 15,000/- c) Income from other sources (agrl) - Rs. 1,50,000/- d) Short term capital gain - Rs.4,74,82,926/- e) Long term capital gain - Rs.6,48,31,420/- 4. In the said order

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

capital gains stating that it is chargeable to tax being non- agricultural land. 74. We find the Assessing Officer had taken the distance from Hayathnagar to Turkayamjal village at 7 kms to conclude the said lands are non-agricultural land. The ld. AR contended that the distance taken from Hayathnagar is unjustified in view of the clause (2) to Explanation

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

capital gains stating that it is chargeable to tax being non- agricultural land. 74. We find the Assessing Officer had taken the distance from Hayathnagar to Turkayamjal village at 7 kms to conclude the said lands are non-agricultural land. The ld. AR contended that the distance taken from Hayathnagar is unjustified in view of the clause (2) to Explanation

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

capital gains stating that it is chargeable to tax being non- agricultural land. 74. We find the Assessing Officer had taken the distance from Hayathnagar to Turkayamjal village at 7 kms to conclude the said lands are non-agricultural land. The ld. AR contended that the distance taken from Hayathnagar is unjustified in view of the clause (2) to Explanation

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

capital gains stating that it is chargeable to tax being non- agricultural land. 74. We find the Assessing Officer had taken the distance from Hayathnagar to Turkayamjal village at 7 kms to conclude the said lands are non-agricultural land. The ld. AR contended that the distance taken from Hayathnagar is unjustified in view of the clause (2) to Explanation

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

capital gains in the hands of the shareholders under section 46A of the Act. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in alleging that the "distribution of accumulated profits to shareholders and the 'scheme of arrangement and compromise' is a device designed by the assessee" for repatriation of accumulated profits outside the country without paying

IDFC FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2(2), HENNAI

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

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

capital gains amount as part of the total income for all the quarters as under: Working of interest by CPC under section 234C Total Tax Advance Advance Advance tax Shortfall Interest Liability Tax (%) tax due paid u/s.234C

PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

capital gains originally exempt requires to be charged in the hands of KICL for AY 1997-98.Consequently, as per section 49(3) of the Act, the cost of acquisition of the assets in the hands of KOIL/PLI will be the actual cost of acquisition i.e. cost at which KOIL/PLI acquired the asset at the value as determined by Stamp Authorities

SMT. MURALI VIDHYA,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD-2,, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section SOC of the Act was completely overlooked in the determination of the FMV for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains. :-5-: ITA. No: 610 & 611/Chny/2020 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the acceptance of the date of transfer in the previous year relating to assessment year under consideration was wrong

SHRI PONDIAN MURALI,,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WARD - 2, , KUMBAKONAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Murali Vidhya, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Aohpv-4251-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 611/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri. Pondian Murali, Income Tax Officer, No. 51, Subramaniyapuram, V. Ward -2, Mayiladuthurai, Kumbakonam – 612 001. Nagapattinam – 609 001. [Pan: Bqbpm-8040-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section SOC of the Act was completely overlooked in the determination of the FMV for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains. :-5-: ITA. No: 610 & 611/Chny/2020 9. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event the acceptance of the date of transfer in the previous year relating to assessment year under consideration was wrong

P. SUBRAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CRICLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

section 50C of the Act and brought to tax, of Rs.1,19,98,298/- as long term capital gain and Rs.5,16,528/- as short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the ld.CIT(A)- NFAC for all the three issues

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(1), CHENNAI vs. CHENNAI PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS LTD , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 53 of the Act of the transfer of part property are fulfilled to record it as a transfer. According to him, the condition of possession was fulfilled in financial year 2015- 16 only and hence, the capital gain is chargeable/assessable in assessment year 2016-17. 4.1 But while quantifying the quantum of land transferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. KUMARASAMY PILLAI APARNA, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 999/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kumarasamy Pillai Aparna, Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 43, Kannadasan Salai, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Srds, Non-Corporate Circle -7(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Afzpa-9359-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 54 of the Act. 23. Consequences of execution of the agreement to sell are also very clear and they are to the effect that the appellants could not have sold the properly to someone else. In practical life, there are events when a person, even after executing an :-7-: ITA. No:999/Chny/2023 agreement to sell an immovable properly

S RAJASEKARAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated above

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

75,00,000/- and declared long term capital gain of Rs.7,19,97,100/- after deducting the index cost of acquisition of Rs.25,55,02,900/-. Further, the AO observed that the assessee has deducted indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.1,16,13,639/- on account of excess payment to farmers and an amount of Rs.7

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

capital gain. Ground No.8 is related to interest u/s 234A/B/C. Ground No.9 is related to penalty levied. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is disposed of in the subsequent paragraphs. 6.2 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. Relevant portion of submission is reproduced below: 3. The following case laws are relied upon where in it has been held