MOSBACHER INDIA LLC,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. DIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

54B, 54D, 54 E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54 H, be chargeable to income tax under the head capital gains and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place”. The gains on transfer of these participation rights is, therefore, required to be I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page

ADHI KUMARA GURU,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-22(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaमाननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी अिमताभ शु"ा, लेखा सद" के सम"

reassessment order dated 13.12.2019, passed u/s. 143(3) read with 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘ACT’ in short] [‘ACT’ in short], for the Assessment Year 2014 Assessment Year 2014-15, was confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the stated, the assessee is an individual who filed

R.JAYASELVI,PONDCHERRY vs. ITO WARD 1, PONDICHERRY

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. No.927/Chny/2018. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. R. Jayaselvi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.27, Mariamman Koil Street, Ward-1, Edayarapalayam, Pondicherry. Pondicherry 605 007. [Pan Awapj 1581D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1), Pondicherry (herein after referred as ‘’the Assessing Officer’’) vide order dated 07.09.2014. The Assessing Officer allowed exemption under the provisions of Section 54B of the ITA No.927 /2018 :- 4 -: Act of "14,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, based on the information on record, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that assessee is not entitled for exemption

MURALI KRISHNA YENUGULA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-22(1), TAMBARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

54B, 54C, 54D, 54F, 54G & 54GA”. In response to statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) of the Act, the assessee filed relevant documents like copies of Sale/Purchase agreement of the scheduled property, Court decree, MoU dated 13.12.2014, bank statement showing receipt of consideration, proof of investment in new property like Sale Deed, construction agreement, bank statement copies, agreement copies

P. RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

reassessment order was passed vide order dated 26.12.2011 by making addition on sale of agricultural land by assessee treating the same as business transaction, adding a sum of Rs.2,23,90,000/-. Aggrieved against this assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before CIT(A) challenged the reopening of assessment and CIT(A) in ITA No.106/11-12 dated