SPL SHELTERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SPL SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

disallowance of interest on TDS. The assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is retrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY 2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied

SARAVANAN ARUMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

50C and sub-section (15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: Section 142A 1[142A. Estimationof value of assets by Valuation Officer.—(1) The Assessing Officermay

SHRIPROP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly.\n15. In result, appeal of both the assessees in ITA No. 1172 & 1173/Chny/2025\nare allowed and the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

disallowance of interest on TDS.\nThe assessee and the revenue are in appeal against the order of the CIT(A).\n5. The ld. AR argued that the tolerance limit introduced in section 56(2)(x) it is\nretrospective in nature and therefore should be applied in assessee's case for AY\n2018-19. The ld. AR in this regard relied

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

1) of the Act was also issued on 09.06.2014. The assessee has claimed exemption under section 54 and 54F of the Act and thereafter arrived at long term capital gains. For the purpose of LTCG, the Assessing Officer adopted guideline value under section 50C of the Act as deemed sale consideration as against sale deed value and accordingly, the difference

TIRUCHANGODU RAMASAMY KHANNAIYANN SARASUWATHI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

50C of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that the appellant had sought for reference to the DVO in respect of the valuation of the impugned property. 13. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not acceding to the request of the appellant for reference to the DVO for valuation of the impugned property. Levy

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. SGP EXIM PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2005/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. S.G.P. Exim Pvt Ltd., Income Tax, V. No. 68, Cathedral Road, Corporate Circle 6(1), Goapalapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 086. [Pan: Aabcs-0551-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022

1) or the Act applies to the assessee's case, When no reference was made to the DVO and the addition had been made under section 50C of the Act by the AO. 4. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

disallowance of Rs.42,29,48,758/- by the Ld.CIT(A) which was made by the Ld.AO invoking provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. It was contested that the addition by the Ld.AO was based upon an arbitrary application of Rule-11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 3.0 During the course of present proceedings, the Ld.Counsel

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Section 50C. Thus there is no escapement warranting reassessment on any fresh material information but only change of opinion. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred treating the profit as short term capital gains while it was arising out of an adventure in the nature of trade. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI vs. A V A CHOLAYIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ava Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6Th Avenue, 15Th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [Pan: Aaica2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 28.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Giving Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.44,22,711/- For Ay 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- For Ay 2014-15 Claimed Under Section 36( 1 )(Iii) When The Assessee Company Has Not Produced Any Evidence Regarding The Transaction For Validating The Claim That It Arose

disallowance of Rs.44,22,711/- for AY 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- for AY 2014-15 claimed under section 36( 1 )(iii) when the assessee company has not produced any evidence regarding the transaction for validating the claim that it arose 2 I.T.A. No. 783/Chny/19 out of a family settlement during FY 2007-08 during the assessment proceedings

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C (b) "fair market value" of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed; (c) "jewellery" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 2; (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C (b) "fair market value" of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed; (c) "jewellery" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to sub-clause (ii) of clause (14) of section 2; (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

1) was issued on 25.06.2015 and duly served on the appellant. As per the provisions u/s.2(47)(v) of the Act, read with the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, it was made clear that the appellant had agreed to transfer/sell its 60% of total land of 35 acres to Developer M/s. Brigade Enterprises Ltd for a consideration which

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].

1,60,00,000) was not brought to tax as required under section 50C of the Act, the ld. PCIT has observed that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and issued show-cause notice under section 263 of the Act dated 23.07.2019. 3 I.T.A. No.783/Chny/20

RAGHUPATHY GOWTHAM ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 16(3), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 50C of the Act. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant pertaining to re- computation of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act on account of change in capital gains or investment made. 5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

disallowed this sum of Rs.5,14,200/- The AO noted that the assessee vide submissions dated 07.12.2021 produced sample copies of vouchers for claim of incurring of expenditure towards helper allowances. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO as these are neither fresh claim arising out of search proceedings found during the course of search and even

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

disallowed this sum of Rs.5,14,200/- The AO noted that the assessee vide submissions dated 07.12.2021 produced sample copies of vouchers for claim of incurring of expenditure towards helper allowances. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of AO as these are neither fresh claim arising out of search proceedings found during the course of search and even

AVANASIYAPPAN ESWARAN,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO,WARD 1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

disallowed the claim of exemption under Section 54F. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds:- 1) The Order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is unsustainable, both on law and on the facts of the case. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that