BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

95 results for “depreciation”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai151Bangalore118Chennai95Delhi77Kolkata31Amritsar7Jaipur7Indore5Ahmedabad4Raipur4Hyderabad4Pune2Dehradun2Chandigarh2Visakhapatnam1Cuttack1Jabalpur1Patna1Surat1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 4063Section 14862Section 143(1)53Deduction50Disallowance49Section 10B47TDS36Addition to Income34Reopening of Assessment33Section 143(3)

M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Appeal is disposed off

ITA 1839/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1839/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008 - 2009 M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate, No.384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaaci 0842D …………… Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle – Ii(1), (Now Dcit, Company Circle – 2(1), ""थ"/Respondent Chennai – 600 034. ……………

For Appellant: Mr. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 195Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

depreciation. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and vide order, dated 31.12.2010, assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act at income of INR 27,47,09,434/- after making the following additions/disallowances: S.No. Particulars of additions Amount (i) Payment made to foreign agencies 14,39,555 disallowed u/s.40

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

31
Section 19529
Section 528

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI & SONS LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2252/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2013/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2015/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1615/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1614/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1616/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1612/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1611/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1613/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. KASTURI AND SONS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1618/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

KASTURI AND SONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the Revenue’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Jeyakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

depreciation. 32. Now coming to assessment year 2007-08, the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of news gathering expenses. 33. Sh. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed `73,35,550/- for non-deduction of tax under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. According 23 I.T.A. Nos.1611 to 1619/Mds/14 I.T.A

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

depreciation on the same. The appellant prays that the Honorable Income Tax Appellant Tribunal may delete the above additions and render justice. 2. Besides the above common grounds, for the assessment year 2009- 10, the assessee has also raised following grounds for adjudication: 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1328-1331/Chny/2018 “3. Ground 2 – Addition on account of capital gains: The appellant