DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE SUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Re

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land at Perambakkam and Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land at Perambakkam and Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of land at Perambakkam and in order to prove the aforesaid facts, prove the aforesaid facts, the assessee is noted to have filed before the filed before the AO, the twenty

PALANISAMY RANI,ERODE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1490/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Principal Commissioner Of Palanisamy Rani, V. Income Tax, 38, Emm Road-2, Chennimalai Coimbatore. Road, Erode – 638 001. [Pan:Biqpr-2991-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

disallowed the assessee’s claim of indexed cost of acquisition of building Rs.12,96,709/- and taxed her share of sale consideration of building @ 20% considering it as long-term capital gain

SHRI RAMASWAMY SHIVARAMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.6,22,63,014/- (Tax Effect- Rs.1,43,65,323/-). 3A. Thereby the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance

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

long term capital gains of Rs.16,24,68,072/- disallowing the exempt u/s.10(38) as undisclosed income from other sources

BHARATHAN ANAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

capital gain of RS.10,96,970/-. 2. The Appellant thus prays that the disallowance of Rs.1 0,96,970/- made by the learned Income Tax Officer and confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be deleted. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal

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

long- term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Further, Section 2(42C) of the Act defines 'slump sale' as a transfer of one or more undertakings for a lumpsum sale consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in such sale. The Explanation

DR.E.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dr.E.S.Krishnamoorthy, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.3, South Mada Street, Non-Corporate Ward-I(4), Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai-600 015. [Pan: Alwpk 0134 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gains computed by the AO by taking into account cost of two flats and non-refundable deposit in the hands of three co- owners is incorrect. The Ld.CIT(A) for the reasons stated in his appellate order confirmed the re-computation of the capital gains made by the AO and partially upheld the credit expenses disallowed

ANIL KUMAR GOEL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

long term capital gains as disclosed by the assessee. Ground Nos.9 to 11 were against the disallowance u/s.14A. 5. At the time

G.NARENDAR CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

long term capital gains should not be disallowed and why ITA Nos.1819 & 1820 /Mds/2017 :- 4 -: such amounts should not be assessed

VENKATRAMAN LAKSHMINARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.543/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Venkatraman Lakshminarayanan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of H-402, Greshott Income Tax, 4, Bishop Garden Extn. R.A.Puram Corporate Circle-3(1) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Abipl 2475P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Term Capital Gains without assigning proper reasons and justification. 5. The CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the disallowance of the claim of the encumbrance cleared on making the payment of Rs.20,92,7301- (the share of the appellant was quantified at Rs.6,97,577/-) in the transfer of the capital asset(s) under consideration in the said recomputation of Long

V.KALPAGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3034/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. V. Kalpagam, The Income Tax Officer, No.2, Door No. 9, Raja V. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Sadhan, Gajapathy Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. [Pan: Ahupk-0879-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023

long term capital gains. 2.1 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the learned AO in substituting the estimated sale consideration of Rs.51,70,400/- with the guideline value of Rs.92,69,700/-. 2.2 The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the plea of the appellant that the learned AO should not have negatived the claim

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI vs. PVP CINEMAS P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1058/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Pvp Cinemas P.Ltd. Krm Centre, 9Th Floor, Tax Non-Corporate Circle-20(1) No.2,Harrington Road, Chennai-34. Chetpet , Chennai-600 031. Pan: Aaeca 8733H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain derived from transfer of property at Rs.4,81,58,512/- and reiterated his findings in respect of deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer has also computed short term capital gain at Rs.21,30,495/- by disallowing

NIRMALA KUMARI CHORDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

long term capital gains should not be disallowed and why such amounts should not be assessed as income from other

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

long term capital gains adopted by the Assessing Officer is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law, the Assessing Officer had adopted the cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner as on 1974 and granted the benefit of indexation from the year 1999 to the assessee. He prayed for giving directions to the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair

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

long term capital gains adopted by the Assessing Officer is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law, the Assessing Officer had adopted the cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner as on 1974 and granted the benefit of indexation from the year 1999 to the assessee. He prayed for giving directions to the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair

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

long term capital gains adopted by the Assessing Officer is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law, the Assessing Officer had adopted the cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner as on 1974 and granted the benefit of indexation from the year 1999 to the assessee. He prayed for giving directions to the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair

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

long term capital gains adopted by the Assessing Officer is wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law, the Assessing Officer had adopted the cost of acquisition incurred by the previous owner as on 1974 and granted the benefit of indexation from the year 1999 to the assessee. He prayed for giving directions to the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair

M/S APEX TRANSWORLD PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.932/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.Apex Transworld Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of 38, 2Nd Main Road, Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aadca 7034 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.K. Ramesh Babu, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.01.2023

long term capital gains on building by :: 4 :: relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M/s.Sun Engineering Workings (P.) reported in [1992] Supp. 1 SCR 732 a. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 5. Disallowance

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. A.P. SRIDHAR (HUF), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2735/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

long term capital gains’ is an income from unexplained sources. The assessee had also challenged the disallowance of exemption claimed