S MAGESH,TIRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot

S. POTHYRAJ,TIUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE01(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot

S ASHOK,TIRUNELVEL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot

S RAMESH,TRUNELVELI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3169/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Pothiraj, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acxpp-8538-R Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3170/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Mahesh, Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6890-K Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3171/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Murugesh Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Tirunelveli Town-627 006. Central Circle-1(3) Pan: Acvpm-6963-D Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3172/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 Shri S.Ashok Deputy Commissioner # 3, North Car Street, Vs. Of Income Tax

penalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed solely based on the deeming provision of Section 50C. The tribunal emphasized that Section 50C, which considers the stamp duty valuation as full value for capital gains, is only a presumption. If the assessee has provided all relevant information and the difference arises due to the deemed value, this cannot

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

50C while claiming carry forward of long term capital loss. For this, assessee has raised following 5 grounds :- 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 23.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271 (i) (c) of the Act of an amount of Rs.1,42,08,778/- u/s 271 (1) (c) is erroneous and contrary

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 2,43,68,627/-. The A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 4,04,156/- u/s 271

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above enhancement. 7. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy of interest u/s 234A in consequence to the addition made by the AO. 8. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to levy

P. MADHAN MOHAN,ERODE vs. ITO, ERODE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that fact that the Assessing officer did not indicate in the notice u/s 274 of the Act, whether the penalty proposed is for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the addition made on account of undisclosed income was only because

SMT. ROOPREKHA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.149/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rooprekha Vs The Income Tax Officer, 4/25, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandaveli, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Adopr 8893F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C of the Act . Thereafter, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act, for purchase of 3 another residential house property and thus, computed Nil capital gain from sale of house property. As regards sale of movable assets like air-conditioner, furniture and fixtures etc., the assessee has not computed any capital gain, because they are in the nature

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2 Factory 62,76,500/- Building 30,00,000/- Total 1.23 acre Land with Factory, buildings and machinery 1,59,80,000/- Well "20,000/- Total "1,60,00,000/- No sale consideration was apportioned towards closing stock. Contention of the assessee was that assets were sold on slump sale basis or going concern basis. Therefore, no specific consideration

MUTHUKUMARAN RANGARAJAN,CHIDAMBARAM vs. ITO WARD 3, CUDDALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1841 & 1842/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2013-14. Muthukumaran Rangarajan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 149-A, Bharathidasan Ward 3, Street, Cuddalore. Kanagasabai Nagar, Chidambaram 608 001. [Pan Aabpr 6319Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

2 Factory 62,76,500/- Building 30,00,000/- Total 1.23 acre Land with Factory, buildings and machinery 1,59,80,000/- Well "20,000/- Total "1,60,00,000/- No sale consideration was apportioned towards closing stock. Contention of the assessee was that assets were sold on slump sale basis or going concern basis. Therefore, no specific consideration