M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains, which was computed under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act, from the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JA of the Act. 13. Now coming to the Revenue’s appeal, the first ground is with regard to addition of `61 Crores for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JA

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LTD., TUTICORIN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains, which was computed under Section 80-IB(4) of the Act, from the book profit for the purpose of computing taxable income under Section 115JA of the Act. 13. Now coming to the Revenue’s appeal, the first ground is with regard to addition of `61 Crores for the purpose of computing book profit under Section 115JA

ANNIRUTHA RAGHUVEER,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allow

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

80,000/- and from such a transaction, from such a transaction, she claimed LTCG of Rs.1,56,91,000/ Rs.1,56,91,000/-. Out of the sale sale-consideration received, the assessee deposited the assessee deposited under the capital gain account scheme under the capital gain account scheme i.e. Rs.1.08 crores [i.e. i.e. Rs.90 lakhs on 11.08.2014 and Rs.18.50 lakhs

JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1207/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Jagannathan Sailaja Chitta, The Income Tax Officer, New No. 4, Old No. 33, Vs. International Taxation 2(2), Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 34. Chennai – 17. [Pan:Biqps3751R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Srinivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 27.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13, Wherein, Besides The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Adjudicated The Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee With Regard To The Claim Of Exemption Under Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Various Disallowances Made Under Section 50C Of The Act, Confirming Disallowance

section 54F of the Act and arrived at taxable long term capital gains of ₹.5,27,40,546/-. From the sale deed furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noticed that the sale consideration shown by the assessee in respect of sale of three properties is less than the value adopted by the stamp value authority for the purpose

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

80-IA. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, where the assessee, before the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139, furnishes to the Assessing Officer a declaration in writing that the provisions of this section may not be made applicable to him, the provisions of this section

ACIT, LTU-2,, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

80% block, which was installed & put to use at the factory premises of the assessee, is in the nature of 'plant & machinery' and therefore eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. The Ld. AR brought to our notice that, this identical issue has been adjudicated in their favour by this Tribunal in their own case

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

capital gains and in the case of self-generated good will it is not possible to determine the same. The third reason for holding that the good will generated in a newly commenced business cannot be described as an 'asset' within the terms of section 45 of the Act was that it is impossible to determine its cost of acquisition

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain or exempted income. The investment was made by the assessee in order to diversification in the non-ferrous metal sector. Therefore, the interest, if any, paid by the assessee has to be allowed under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Since the investment was made in the ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 course of business, there cannot

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

80,892/- Long term capital gains = Rs.2,45,19,108/- The assessee has not furnished any documents with regard to investment of Capital Gain in Capital Gain account and further investment in residential property, no capital gain exemption is allowed to the assessee. Thus, the Capital gains earned by the assessee out of this transaction is Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 80-IA(8) of the Act. According to us, the sale price cannot further be segregated by imputing price attributable to marketing and R&D efforts for the simple reason that there is no such provision contained in law. We agree with the Ld. AR that, the method of computation to be adopted by the assessee, in line with

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\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

Capital Gain,\" in\nthe acquisition of which no cost at all can be conceived. Good will generated in\nan individual's business was held to be an asset in which no cost element can\nbe identified or envisaged. It was also held that the date of acquisition of the\nasset is a material factor in applying the computation provisions pertaining

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

gains are to be derived from the business of\ndeveloping SEZ. The Ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention to the\nletter of approval issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated\n25.04.2008, copy of which was placed at Pages 106-109 of the paper-\nbook and contended that the assessee was a 'co-developer' and therefore\nit qualified

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

capital gains on sale of shares. 15.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that all the conditions required for claiming exemption uIsl0(38) had been met by the appellant. 16.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding , the addition made by the assessing officer had made the addition based on guesswork, conjectures and surmises. 17.The

ALEXANDE ZACHARIAH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

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 of a reference U/s.144A of the Act. Subsequently, the AO denied the claim of exemption U/s.54 of the Act, for the reasons that a) the new property