THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details available and the information supplied was absolutely no details available

THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHENNAI vs. ITO(E), WARD-2,, CHENNAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

capital gain and nobody knew which shares were transacted and with whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were whom the transaction has taken place and in that case there were absolutely no details available and the information supplied was absolutely no details available

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

147 of the Act is to tax escaped income on account of bogus long term capital gains declared by the assessee, and said reasonable belief has been drawn by the AO on the basis of information received from Income-tax Department, Kolkata. If you go by reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, the AO noticed that during the course

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

147 of the Act is to tax escaped income on account of bogus long term capital gains declared by the assessee, and said reasonable belief has been drawn by the AO on the basis of information received from Income-tax Department, Kolkata. If you go by reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, the AO noticed that during the course

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

147 of the Act is to tax escaped income on account of bogus long term capital gains declared by the assessee, and said reasonable belief has been drawn by the AO on the basis of information received from Income-tax Department, Kolkata. If you go by reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, the AO noticed that during the course

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

147 of the Act is to tax escaped income on account of bogus long term capital gains declared by the assessee, and said reasonable belief has been drawn by the AO on the basis of information received from Income-tax Department, Kolkata. If you go by reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, the AO noticed that during the course

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

147 of the Act is to tax escaped income on account of bogus long term capital gains declared by the assessee, and said reasonable belief has been drawn by the AO on the basis of information received from Income-tax Department, Kolkata. If you go by reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, the AO noticed that during the course

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

147 of the Act and disallowed the long term capital loss as well. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act in relation to the reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act wherein he upheld the correctness of the long term capital loss as well

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

capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount of Rs. 15 crores which was total consideration as per agreements entered into with Pentamedia Group of concerns. The aforesaid assessment was framed by AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

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

capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount of Rs. 15 crores which was total consideration as per agreements entered into with Pentamedia Group of concerns. The aforesaid assessment was framed by AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

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

capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount of Rs. 15 crores which was total consideration as per agreements entered into with Pentamedia Group of concerns. The aforesaid assessment was framed by AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

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

capital gains on sale of shares instead of an amount of Rs. 15 crores which was total consideration as per agreements entered into with Pentamedia Group of concerns. The aforesaid assessment was framed by AO vide assessment order dated 31.12.2008 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain and had claimed the entire sum as exempt u/s 54 of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the AO The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the AO The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147

VANAVIL ESTATE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal for both AYs 2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. Vanavil Estate, The Pcit (Central), 4/20, Duraiswamy Reddy Street, Chennai-1. West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. [Pan: Aalfv 0770 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

capital gain and had claimed the entire sum as exempt u/s 54 of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the AO The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the AO The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147

SHRI R PANNERSELVAM,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(3),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Girish Agrawal

Reassessment Order dated 03.06.93 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act especially when the original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.1989 was cancelled by C.I.T. Amritsar vide his order dated 28.02.92 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and no fresh order was passed pursuant thereto. Therefore, the question no. 1 is answered

EDWIN SELVARAJ SUNDRARAJ,SALEM vs. THE ITO, WARD -1(4), SALEM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 783/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gains from :-5-: ITA. No:783 /Chny/2022 transfer of property. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: 4. Appellate findings: I have carefully considered the facts of the case, reassessment order dated 22.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment of\nMr. TSRK for AY 2016-17 by issuance of notice u/s.148A of the Act. The\nnotice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act upon Mr. TSRK, was objected to by\nthe latter, who pointed out that, the payment of Rs.14 crores to him was\narising from transfer of impugned property in question and that the\ncapital gains derived

S.SATHYANARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at total income under normal provisions of "14,84,916/- and capital gains of "35,72,678/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer noticed from the statement filed by the assessee during the course of original assessment proceedings that assessee has revised statement showing capital gain