SMT. KANTA BAI C. JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 5 (1),, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed to that extent

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

penny stocks. 2. As per revised Form 36, there is delay of 513 days in the appeal, the condonation of which

GOLDEN ENTERPRISES,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-4(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 224 & 225/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13

delay in filing of above appeals are condoned and appeals filed by the assessee are admitted for adjudication. 3 I.TA. Nos. 224 & 225/Chny/2020 3. The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal for both assessment years and therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed for assessment year 2011-12 are reproduced as under

MAHESH KUMAR (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

penny stock) report. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee purchased 10,000 shares of M/s.Essar India Ltd., @ Rs.1/- per share. Subsequently, one share was split into 10 shares and the assessee’s total holding became 1,00,000 shares. The assessee sold the 1,00,000 shares during the period relevant to assessment year

MAHESH KUMAR(HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 11(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the penalty appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2563/Chny/2017 & 2392/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2014-15

penny stock) report. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee purchased 10,000 shares of M/s.Essar India Ltd., @ Rs.1/- per share. Subsequently, one share was split into 10 shares and the assessee’s total holding became 1,00,000 shares. The assessee sold the 1,00,000 shares during the period relevant to assessment year

R. SHOBHA LODHA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CROP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in assessing the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of purchase and sale of shares as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act and disallowed the claim of exemption u/s.10

KAHNAYALAL ANIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 2044/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15

penny stock and assessed the entire sale consideration as an “income from other sources”. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay

MS. ASHOK KUMAR INDIRA DUGAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 9 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.555/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Ashok Kumar Indira Dugar, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Clemens Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(2), Vepery, Chennai-7. Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8082 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and admitted the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. :: 3 :: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 06.08.2012 admitting total income of Rs.12,32,550/-. The assessment has been completed u/s.143

SHRI PANMULL ASHOK KUKAR DUGAR,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC - 9 (1),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.556/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Panmull Ashok Kumar Dugar, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-7. Non-Corporate Circle-9(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8081 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and admitted the appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. :: 3 :: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 06.08.2012 admitting total income of Rs.15,99,450/-. The assessment has been completed u/s.143

VILINA SURESH JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 18(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2570/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. Shri D. Anand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in respect of long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares to the extent of ₹11,37,600/-. In fact, according

SHRI KEVALCHAND MANOHARCHAND,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

SHRI GHEESULAI PRAVEEN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 5(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

DAMAYANTHI DEVAKINANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

SHRI GHEESULAI PRAVEEN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 5(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

PRAVEEN KUMAR DAMAYANTHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is disposed of on merit. 4. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the sole issue raised in this appeal was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of the exempt income u/s.10(38) of the Act. The issue in this appeal

VINOD KUMAR KUNDANMAL ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

TARUN KUNDANMAL HUF,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

TARUN KUMAR KUNDANMALJI JAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed

VINOD KUMAR KUNDANMALJI JAIN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

condone the delay of 86 days in all these appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication on merits. 3. We advert to the basic relevant facts. The Assessee filed his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013 – 2014 on 07.07.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,43,380/- and the same stood summarily processed