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

u/s 148 on 27/03/2018. In response to the said notice, the appellant company filed its return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 17/04/2018 admitting NIL Income and declaring short term capital loss from the sale of the property and claiming current year loss of Rs.42,42,155/-, During the reopened assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that the property

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

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

u/s 147 were dropped considering the fact that if the income has been treated as Business income it would result in a refund of Rs.2,96,95,552 for AY 2006-07 and 1,86,15,213 for AY 2007-08. With respect to the AY 2010-11, the Income was treated as Business Income as the assessee itself

YOUVAN COSMECEUTICALS & CONSULTANCY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

147 by issuing notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2012. 2.1· The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the erstwhile partnership firm was dissolved during the year 2005; hence no return was filed for this assessment year. Issuing notice u/s 148 in the name of dissolved firm which was not served on assesse as per the time limit

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. B.V.REDDY ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3293/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. B.V. Reddy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New No. 21/Old No. 10A, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Umayal Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaccn2252L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 13.09.2008 Disclosing Total Income Of ₹.1,83,53,540/- After Setting Off Of Carry Forward Loss Of ₹.9,67,40,138/-.

short term capital gain alone amounts to Rs. 1.73 crores which clearly bring outs the motive for earning profit. A cumulative analysis of the above conditions reveals that the above transactions are in the nature of trade. In view of the above the above capital gains may be treated as business income and taxed accordingly. 8 I.T.A. No. 3293/Chny/16

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.14 7. • That the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond a period of four years despite the fact that all the material facts were truly disclosed at the time of original assessment; • Power conferred by sec; 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment. • That the notice issued

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.14 7. • That the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond a period of four years despite the fact that all the material facts were truly disclosed at the time of original assessment; • Power conferred by sec; 147 does not provide a fresh opportunity to the AO to correct an incorrect assessment. • That the notice issued

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 :

short 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

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

147 of the Act. f) The reassessment proceedings by the Ld. AO are mere change of opinion as the appellant during the course of regular assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act submitted all the relevant information proposed to be added in response to the notice issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act during the course of regular scrutiny proceedings

ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -15(3), CHENNAI vs. SHRI RAMACHANDRA RAMAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 58/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.124/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Ramachandra Raman, Non Corporate Ward 15(3), 21B, Deccan Parvathy, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 206, Wanaparthy Kannappa Nagar Extension, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aehpr6467D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Is In Respect Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act

u/s 54EC and 54F is not applicable in this case as it is not a Long Term Capital Gain. To bring the same to taxation the case is reopened. Since, the scrutiny assessment is getting time barred by 31.12.2016, you are required to furnish the relevant details on or before 22.09.2016 and the same day your case is posted

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

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 AR for the assessee submitted that legal grounds are purely issues concerning the limitation prescribed

ITO (IT), WARD 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1326/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Income Tax Officer Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1), #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms.Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 25-02-2016 wherein the issue of chargeability of Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG) on sales of shares of an entity by the name M/s Rajesh Exports Ltd. was identified. The case was reopened pursuant to receipt of information from investigation wing that the assessee entered into high value share transactions for Rs.155 Crores

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M/S THULASI & OTHERS, CHENNAI

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.18/Chny/2021 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S. Thulasi & Others बनाम/ 32, (Old No.43), 2Nd Floor, Non-Corporate Circle-8(1) Chennai. K.Bharathidasan Salai, Siet College Road Vs. Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofm-9784-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

short term capital gains while he had already reopened the assessment of payer assessee. Considering the same, present AO mechanically issued notice u/s 148. In the proposal seeking approval of reopening, it was mentioned that the assessee did not file the return of income and it did not have any PAN. However, the original scrutiny assessment u/s

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

short `AO'), in the hands of the\nassessee, on the given facts and circumstances of the case.\n3. Brief facts as noted are that, the AO of the assessee was in receipt\nof information that the assessee, Shri Palanisamy had transferred an\nimmovable property of 1.27 acres of land situated at Ramanathapuram\nVillage, Coimbatore on 31.03.2016to M/s. Hindusthan Educational

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)

short "the Act”). 2. Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. A survey operation u/s.133A of ITA Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 925 & 926/Chny/2024 (AYs 20 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vanavil Estate :: 2 :: the Act was conducted i the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee

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)

short "the Act”). 2. Brief facts as noted are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. A survey operation u/s.133A of ITA Nos.925 & 926/Chny/2024 925 & 926/Chny/2024 (AYs 20 2017-18 & 2018-19) Vanavil Estate :: 2 :: the Act was conducted i the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee

K.R.JAYARAM,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

short term capital gains”. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny. The fact that the assessee sold a land of 4.9 acres at Telungupalayam, Coimbatore, jointly held with one Mr.Guruswamy during the year under consideration for a consideration of `318.50 lakhs and offered his fifty percent share of profit under the head ‘capital gains’ in the original return. While

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

short “ld.CIT(A)”) confirming the assessment order framed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 dated 16.03.2022. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.19,86,16,459/- as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) u/s

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]

term capital gains arising on sale of land at Pallangi Village, was not disclosed in the original return of income or in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. The assessee could not prove that capital gains had arisen prior to 01.04.1999. In the case of alleged unexplained investments in land at Kodaikanal