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

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 be treated as concealment

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

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 be treated as concealment

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

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 be treated as concealment

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

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 be treated as concealment

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the A.O. has not specified under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty has been initiated whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. He also argued that the penalty has been levied merely

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in enhancing the assessment u/s 251(1) by disallowing the investment u/s 54F of the Act of Rs.20,00,000/-. 6. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the AD to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the above enhancement. 7. For that

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

271(1)(c) is not valid. 6. The CIT(A) blindly confirmed the penalty failing to see that the same was levied without examining or enquiring the seller of the property on the actual amount paid by the assessee and which amounts to violation of natural justice 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed

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)

5 -: 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended that assets were sold on going concern, slump sale basis and no consideration was assigned towards sale of closing stock. It is further contended that no stock was lying with the assessee and the stock should be deemed to have lost value

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)

5 -: 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. It is contended that assets were sold on going concern, slump sale basis and no consideration was assigned towards sale of closing stock. It is further contended that no stock was lying with the assessee and the stock should be deemed to have lost value

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