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

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

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

54B had been claimed The land was sold only because it was not fit for bio research, and because of the presence of endosulfan and such pesticides. 8. The explanation offered was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as according to her, the properties were purchased on power of attorney, were sold within a short period and profits were earned

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

Section 147 & proviso to it were not fulfilled. The Ld.AR submitted that initiation of reassessment would have been permissible Mr. Murali Krishna Yenugula :: 7 :: only if the AO was having in his possession fresh and tangible material which came in his possession subsequent to passing of the order u/s.143(3) and its relation with formation of belief should have been