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 that arose to the appellant assessee was Rs.10,47,95,925/ that arose to the appellant assessee was Rs.10,47,95,925/-. In the meanwhile, . In the meanwhile, on on on 14.5.2007, 14.5.2007, 14.5.2007, the the the appellant appellant appellant assessee assessee assessee purchased purchased purchased the the the property property property with with with superstructure

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

long term capital gains. In this order the provisions of section 50A were referred to. This section makes special provision for cost of acquisition in the case of depreciable asset. It says that where the capital asset is one in respect of which depreciation was allowed in any previous year; the provisions of sections 48 and 49 shall apply subject

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 and thus render Justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has e- filed her return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on :-4-: ITA. No: 3034/Chny/2018 31.07.2014, admitting total income of Rs.7,08,460/-, which comprises of income from salary, income from house property

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)

house(s). The deduction claimed u/s.54 for the assessee's part of 42.5% has to be allowed after deducting the Indexed cost of acquisition for the assessee's share in the old property transferred. The 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 gains and further exemption claimed u/s.54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards purchase of residential house property

SHRI RAMALINGAM NAGARAJAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 21 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

long term capital gains and also exemption u/s.54 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has utilized full amount of capital gains derived from sale of original asset for acquiring new residential house property

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. MS. A.P. SANDHYA, 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

property at Rs.6,87,87,600/-. Further, assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.2,53,96,006/- for purchase of residential flat and also claimed exemption u/s.54EC of the Act for Rs.50 lakhs in respect of investment in M/s.Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (in short “REC") Bonds and finally declared long term capital gains

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

property at Rs.6,87,87,600/-. Further, assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.2,53,96,006/- for purchase of residential flat and also claimed exemption u/s.54EC of the Act for Rs.50 lakhs in respect of investment in M/s.Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (in short “REC") Bonds and finally declared long term capital gains

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

housing and therefore it should be regarded as building used for business purposes. The AO following the orders passed by his predecessors held that, the depreciation rate allowable on residential buildings as per the Income-tax Rules was 5% and not 10% and that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 had also held that

SMT. P. CHITRA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 13 (2),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 749/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

property is rightly assessable under the head long term capital gains. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, further referring to purchase of another residential house

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

property sold, the sale of which will necessarily presuppose clearing of those encumbrances. In fact, in this case there was no specific encumbrance: on the said shares. Even, when there are specific encumbrances like that of a loan that has been obtained on the said shares, the clearances of the loan by way of sale of shares would only

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

property sold, the sale of which will necessarily presuppose clearing of those encumbrances. In fact, in this case there was no specific encumbrance: on the said shares. Even, when there are specific encumbrances like that of a loan that has been obtained on the said shares, the clearances of the loan by way of sale of shares would only

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

property sold, the sale of which will necessarily presuppose clearing of those encumbrances. In fact, in this case there was no specific encumbrance: on the said shares. Even, when there are specific encumbrances like that of a loan that has been obtained on the said shares, the clearances of the loan by way of sale of shares would only

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

property sold, the sale of which will necessarily presuppose clearing of those encumbrances. In fact, in this case there was no specific encumbrance: on the said shares. Even, when there are specific encumbrances like that of a loan that has been obtained on the said shares, the clearances of the loan by way of sale of shares would only

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI vs. KUMARASAMY PILLAI APARNA, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 999/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kumarasamy Pillai Aparna, Deputy Commissioner Of V. No. 43, Kannadasan Salai, Income Tax, T.Nagar, Srds, Non-Corporate Circle -7(1), Chennai – 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Afzpa-9359-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (A) Rs.4,01,74,215 Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 5. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee assailed the action of AO and stated that the reinvestment made in the house property

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