SMT. BIMALA DEVI AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 422/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons

SMT. SHOBA AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENT CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 421/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons

SHRI VINOD BANSAL,CHENNAI vs. ACI-CENT. CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 445/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons

SMT.RITA AGARWAL ,CHENAI vs. PCIT , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gains. 22. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons

PANKAJ AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. PCIT , CHENAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gains. 21. It was contended that the CIT cannot revise the reassessment for the mistakes in the reasons

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

Gains [As per Section 45(2) of the Act] Investment Investment directly inherited Particulars held by on merger Total assessee of ASL to assessee A) Long-term (LT) investment: % share in ownership interest(LT in nature) 1.59% 46.93% 48.52% Cost of acquisition 747.58 22.108.55 22,856.13 Indexed Cost of acquisition [upto

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 gain on buildings against the short term capital gain originally is not considered in this order in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) 1992 Supp 1 SCR 732 a, dated 17 September, 1992 in which the Hon'ble Apex

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

long term capital gain is ab initio void/ 20 I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/24 infructuous. Further, he observed that the Assessing Officer made addition in the case of two other legal heirs of Shri Mahesh Baliga Mrs. Premalatha Baliga and Ms. Gayathri Baliga of their shares of capital gains on account of sale of property at Bengaluru. Therefore, he held the reassessment

VANDANA DAGA ,CHENNAI vs. PR. CIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vandana Daga, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19-C, Nungambakkam High Road, Non Corporate Ward 3(5), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aclpv1469P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai 4, Chennai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 13 Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Not Pressed & Accordingly Dismissed As Not Pressed. 3. Ground Nos. 1 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Concerning Only Issue Questioning The Validity Of Jurisdiction Assumed By The Ld. Pcit Under Section 263 Of The Act.

long term capital gains and short term capital gains. He argued that the assumption of jurisdiction 3 I.T.A. No.1056/Chny/24 by the ld. PCIT is not maintainable as the Assessing Officer conducted detailed enquiry in respect of the same issues under original and reassessment

RAMANATHAN ADAIKALAVAN,COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.557/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Ramanathan Adaikalavan, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.80, Ansari Street, Ram Nagar, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641009. Coimbatore [Pan: Aanpa6846P] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P.M.Kathir, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

term capital gains. While doing so, it was concluded that the asset sold was depreciable asset on which depreciation was claimed in earlier years. It is the case of the assessee that the reassessment of its case invoking provisions of section 147 / 148 are bad in law. The Ld. Counsel had contended that reassessment of any proceedings on the basis

MONOTECH SYSTEMS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

long-term capital asset, the subsequent receipt cannot partake the character of short-term capital gain. The corollary also holds good and hence the short fall has to be treated as loss and such loss attains the character of the original transaction. Since, the slump sale has resulted in LTCG and the subsequent year loss on account of non-realization

INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

long-term capital gain, holding that the land was a capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act. :-6-: ITA. No:2079/Chny/2025 10. On appeal the ld.CIT(A) has deleted the additions made under the head capital gains on account of sale of agricultural land stating that the impugned land is not a capital asset. 11. The principal controversy arising

MUTHUSAMY SHANMUGAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.362/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Muthusamy Shanmugam, The Income Tax Officer, C/O.Ramesh & Ramachandran, Cas Vs. Ward-2(2), New No.39, Old No.29/3, Chennai. Viswanathapuram Main Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Dghps-7897-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

long term capital gains/ short term capital loss by way of manipulated trading. High volatility in price shares in the shares of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd on BSE (Srip code: 506016). Various persons have booked profit more than Rs. 6.5 crores in the scrip. Various clients have also booked losses to Rs. 1.78 crores in the scrip during various

GANESAN KANNAN,THOOTHUKUDI vs. ITI, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, THOOTHUKUDI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 698/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19

Long-Term capital Gain on sale of 3,10,742 third property 4. Short Term Capital Gain on sale of 1,34,63,935 1,43,14,139 property I & II Total Assessed Income 1,43,66,879 :-6-: ITA. No:698/Chny/2024 Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The learned

RAMASAMI PALANISAMY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Long Term\nCapital Gain (LTCG) from the transfer of property in question to tax in his\nreturn of income. The AO in this regard is noted to have also\nacknowledged that Mr. TSRK, had admitted LTCG from sale of scheduled\nproperty in his return of income for AY 2016-17. The AO, at the same\ntime, observed that, Mr. TSRK

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

long term capital gain. Ground No.8 is related to interest u/s 234A/B/C. Ground No.9 is related to penalty levied. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is disposed of in the subsequent paragraphs. 6.2 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. Relevant portion of submission is reproduced below: 3. The following case laws are relied upon where

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

long term capital gain. Ground No.8 is related to interest u/s 234A/B/C. Ground No.9 is related to penalty levied. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is disposed of in the subsequent paragraphs. 6.2 During appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed written submission. Relevant portion of submission is reproduced below: 3. The following case laws are relied upon where

SIVASUNDAR SELVAKUMARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(6), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings are not sustainable in law and the addition of Rs.19,86,16,459/- made towards Long Term Capital Gain

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

Long Term Capital Gains and a sum of Rs.12,76,142/- as interest income in addition to the interest income already offered by the assessee in the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. 14. The assessee had filed appeal against the re-assessment order before the Ld.CIT(A) in challenging