V GOVIND (HUF),VELACHERY MAIN ROAD vs. ACIT, GREAMS ROAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to Ground No.10 raised before ITAT, which reads as under:- “10. The appellant craves leave to refer to the various documents including sale deeds and sale agreements filed during the course of assessment proceedings and requests that may be considered as part

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

condone delay in filing appeals filed by the both the assessee’s. 5. Both the assessee’s has more or less filed common grounds of appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No. 610/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No

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

condone delay in filing appeals filed by the both the assessee’s. 5. Both the assessee’s has more or less filed common grounds of appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, grounds of appeal filed in ITA No. 610/Chny/2020 are reproduced as under: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Trichy dated 11.03.2020 in I.T.A.No

FAIZA HEMEED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

section 50C of the Act in spite of the fact that there was no registration taken place during the year under consideration. Only in the case of registration, AO can invoke 50C of the Act. 5. Alternatively, even if 50C of the Act is invoked, the learned assessing officer, adopted the guideline value at Rs.12000/- per sq.ft instead of Rs.3500

M/S DHANALAKSHMI MILLS LTD,TIRIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.153/Chny/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S.Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 130, B.S.Sundaram Road, Income Tax, Tirupur-641 601. Circle-1, Tirupur. Pan: Aabcd 9708J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 3 “1. The order of PCIT. Coimbatore I dated 25.03.2021 is opposed to the facts of the case and is not legally maintainable. 2 The assessee filed a detailed reply dated 09.03.2021 16.03.2021 in connection with the show cause notice dated

SUNDARAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1935/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sundarakrishnan, Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, 5Th Main Road, V. Income Tax, Kasturba Nagar, Coimbatore -1. Adyar – 600 020. [Pan: Arbps-4782-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 is erroneous on the procedural aspects involved in the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed. 2. That

SHRI C. THANGARAJ,,TIRUPUR vs. PCIT-3, , COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Chny/2020 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2014-15 C. Thangaraj, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 1, Vaikkal Thottam, Palladam Income Tax - 3, Road, Tirupur 641 604. Coimbatore. [Pan:Abtpt5217E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (*+थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri A. Arjun Raj, C.A. By Virtual *+थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. C. Thangaraj :: 3 :: 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, partner in firms and prop: of Key Tex Hosieries, filed his return of income on 26.05.2015 admitting an income of ₹.6,40,230/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for 2 I.T.A. No.783/Chny/20 adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 02.09.2016 for the assessment year 2015-16 admitting a total income of ₹.53,24,173/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and notice under section

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 13(4), CHENNAI vs. P.GANSH KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1984/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri P. Ganesh Kumar, Old. No. 17, New No. 31, 3Rd Street, Non Corporate Ward 13(4), Vs. Chennai. Santhi Nagar, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Arnpg6761G] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income belatedly on 16.10.2013 admitting a total income of ₹.1,67,490/-. The assessee along with 63 others sold the property at Door No. 71, LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur

MIRACLEE RECLAIM RUBBER COIMBATORE (P) LTD.,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 50C of the Income Tax Act and 50C of which ie. Rs.61.74,630/- i.e. {50% 1,23,49,260/-} was shown as your share. However, as per Stamp Valuation Authority the value of land was assessed at Rs.1,51,80,000/- (full value) and accordingly, your company's share amounting

MIRACLE OLYMERS INDIA LTD,PALAKKAD vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:519/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 M/S. Miracle Reclaim Rubber The Principal Commissioner Of (Coimbatore) Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax – 1, No.13 / 679, Menonpara Road, Coimbatore – Annexe Building, New Industrial Development Area 63A, Race Course Road, (Nida), Kanjikode, Coimbatore – 641 018. Palakkad – 678 621. Pan : Aaecm 3230B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 50C of the Income Tax Act and 50C of which ie. Rs.61.74,630/- i.e. {50% 1,23,49,260/-} was shown as your share. However, as per Stamp Valuation Authority the value of land was assessed at Rs.1,51,80,000/- (full value) and accordingly, your company's share amounting

SRIMATHI RAJAMANI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-2(1),, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1874/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rajamani, The Income Tax Officer, 5/80, Mvs House, Vs. Ward-2(1), Salem Street Plant Road, Salem. Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem – 636 302. Pan: Afppr 2492K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to computation of long term capital gain out of sale of 9716 sq.ft. of land at SF No.258/6, Rasi Nagar, Jagir Ammapalayam, Salem. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that

NAVIN KUMAR NATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD 2(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1200/Chny/2024 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2014-15

delay is condoned accordingly. 3. The only effective ground in this appeal of assessee is against confirming the addition by Ld. CIT(A) of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 43,49,521/-. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O has reopened the assessment for the reason that the assessee has sold immovable properties

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

condone the delay and admit the appeal. I.T.A. No.1405/Chny/2015 3 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in regard to claim of deduction u/s.10B of the Act and Non application of provisions of Sec 50C while claiming carry

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].

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. PCIT is justified in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act in the given facts and circumstances

D.K.HEATERS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE -1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2285/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. D.K. Heaters, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of New No.41, Old No.20, Income Tax, 3Rd Trust Cross Street, Non-Corporate Circle – I, Chennai – 34. Mandavali, Chennai – 28. Pan: Aacfd 6086B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

condoned the delay in the interests of justice. :-4-: ITA No. 2285/Chny/2017 4. The ld.AR pleaded to admit the following additional grounds of appeal : “1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) "CIT(A)" erred in applying the Provisions of Section 50C

MOHAMED NAYEEM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD 7(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 213/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 M. Mohamed Nayeem, Income Tax Officer, No. 94, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 7(4), J.J. Complex, Chennai. Thirumangalam, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Aeypm 6644L]

condone the delay. 4. Shri. M. Mohamed Nayeem, the assessee an Income Tax practitioner, admitted, inter alia, short term capital gains in his return of income. The AO found that the assessee, jointly with his wife, purchased a flat from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for Rs. 24,85,200/- vide document dated 18.12.2010,. It was sold

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(3), CHENNAI vs. M.SURESH KUMAR, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1990/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Sureshkumar, Non Corporate Ward 14(3), 121, Vs. S/O Shri Mohan, Door No. 68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Dshps8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

condonation of delay, the Revenue also challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of long term capital gains. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee along with 63 others sold the property at Door No. 71, LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai for a total consideration of ₹.32 crores. The guideline value