T.L.SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-14, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1596/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 13, (Old No. 1), V. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non-Corporate Circle -14, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 033. [Pan: Aepps-6766-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

Section 50C, the capital gains on transfer of the properties should be computed as under: i. Property A: Sale Consideration received: Rs. 72,48,500/- being guideline value of the property received in exchange) Guideline value as per S,50C: Rs.76,30,000/- (amount on which stamp duty is paid) Highest of the above: Rs.76,30,000/- Cost

TAMIL NADU BRICK INDUSTRIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

50C of the Act: c. The appellant contended that the assessee firm was converted its capital asset of land into stock-in-trade in the year 1986-1987 as per Section 45(2) of the Act. d. The appellant contended that the Capital gains as on the date of conversion can be offered in the year of actual sale

A VIJAYAKUMARI,PATTUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, NCW-1, , THANJAVUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3435/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. A. Vijayakumari, The Income Tax Officer, No. 25, Pillaiyar Koil St., Pattukottai, Vs. Ward 1, Thanjavur District. Thanjavur. [Pan:Aacpv3947K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.T. Durairaj Kandiar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) On Confirmation Of Both Income From Long Term Capital Gains & Short Term Capital Gains.

68,880/- as against the guideline value of ₹.44,69,000/- during the financial year 2013-14. As the said transaction attracts the provision of section 50C

T.L. SRITHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-14,, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2634/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2014-15 T.L. Sritharan, The Asst. Commissioner Of New No.13, Old No.1, Vs. Income Tax, Swaminathan Street, Non Corporate Circle-14, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 033. Pan: Aepps 6766J

Section 50C of the Act at Rs. 2,43,68,627/-. The A.O. levied penalty of Rs. 4,04,156/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing

ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(3), CHENNAI vs. M.SURESH KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1990/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, Shri M. Sureshkumar, Non Corporate Ward 14(3), 121, Vs. S/O Shri Mohan, Door No. 68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan:Dshps8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 26.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Besides Challenging Condonation Of Delay, The Revenue Also Challenged That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gains.

68-2, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Vallalar Street (Karikalan Street) , Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [PAN:DSHPS8007K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU

VEDHAPURI RENUKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-22(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

68,040/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO and now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The ld.counsel for the assessee before me, only requested that the State Government has reduced the guideline value of the property subsequently and for this, he filed

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI vs. A V A CHOLAYIL HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ava Cholayil Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., 1583, J. Block, 6Th Avenue, 15Th Main Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. Chennai 600 034. Road, Chennai 600 102. [Pan: Aaica2178A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri G. Chandrababu, Addl. Cit Assessee By : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 28.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Giving Relief To The Assessee By Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.44,22,711/- For Ay 2013-14 & Rs.45,56,529/- For Ay 2014-15 Claimed Under Section 36( 1 )(Iii) When The Assessee Company Has Not Produced Any Evidence Regarding The Transaction For Validating The Claim That It Arose

68,284/-. Since the assessee has extended interest free loan to its sister concern on 3 I.T.A. No. 783/Chny/19 the secured borrowings for which the assessee has debited interest, the Assessing Officer worked out proportionate interest to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act at ₹.44,22,711/- and brought to tax. On appeal

MR. THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. ADDL. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

68,29,788/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act (Tax effect – Rs.43,01,56,277/-) 5.1 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable to tax those receipts which are received without consideration / for inadequate consideration whereas the present

MRS.JOTHI NARAYANAN ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

68,29,788/- u/s.56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act (Tax effect – Rs.43,01,56,277/-) 5.1 For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have accepted the contention of the appellant that provision of section 56(2)(vii) are applicable to tax those receipts which are received without consideration / for inadequate consideration whereas the present

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

50C of the Act, this value of ₹.6,51,76,500/- has to be taken as sale consideration for the computation of capital gain. Since, the assessee has not filed any return of income admitting any capital gain on the sale of the above property, the assessment for the assessment year 2013-14 was re- opened by way of issuing

SHRI K.S. KATHIRVEL (HUF),CHENNAI vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2467/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri K.S. Kathirvel (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, New No. 16/17, Teachers Colony, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Podanur, Coimbatore 641 023. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaihk6826J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Srihar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 27.05.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 27.05.2016 In I.T.A.No.118/15-16 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit (Appeals) Erred In Partly Confirming The Addition Made In The Computation Of Long Term Capital Gains On The Application Of Section 50C Of 2

50C of 2 I.T.A. No.2467/M/16 the Act without assigning proper reasons and justification and ought to have appreciated that the entire re-computation of Long Term Capital Gains was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. 3. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the re-working of the indexed cost of acquisition being the fair market value

XL COLOUR COATING ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-15(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Xl Colour Coating, Vs. The Income Tax Officer , Plot No. 76, Industrial Developed Plots, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Perungudi, Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafx0897J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R

50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] is applicable to the assessee. The Assessing Officer calculated income from capital gain at ₹.3,56,04,777/- after deducting the indexed cost of acquisition amounting to ₹.4,33,31,223/- from the market value of ₹.7,89,36,000/-. 3 I.T.A. No.3505/Chny/25 The Assessing Officer also noted that

RAJENDRAA SAKUNTHALA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, NCC-2,, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68,770/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.03.2022 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore, being the JAO. In response thereto, the assessee filed her return of income on 15.04.2022 declaring a total income of Rs.4,03,29,350/-. 5. Thereafter, the case was assigned

P. SUBRAMANI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CRICLE 1(1), CHENNAI

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

section 50C of the Act and brought to tax, of Rs.1,19,98,298/- as long term capital gain and Rs.5,16,528/- as short term capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee filed detailed submissions before the ld.CIT(A)- NFAC for all the three issues

SMT. ROOPREKHA,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 2 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.149/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mrs. Rooprekha Vs The Income Tax Officer, 4/25, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandaveli, Non-Corporate Ward-2(3) Chennai-600 028. Chennai. Pan: Adopr 8893F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

50C of the Act . Thereafter, the assessee has claimed exemption u/s.54 of the Act, for purchase of 3 another residential house property and thus, computed Nil capital gain from sale of house property. As regards sale of movable assets like air-conditioner, furniture and fixtures etc., the assessee has not computed any capital gain, because they are in the nature

M. LAKSHMI PRIYA,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

section 50C of the Act was wholly unjustified especially in view of completely overlooking the depressing factors. 6.The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the findings in paragraph No.7.1 of the impugned order were not correct and that the valuation report relied upon to consider the issues relating to the quantification of the sale consideration in the computation

W.M.M.SHAMSUDEEN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2224/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri W.M.M. Shamsudeen, The Income Tax Officer, 191, N.S.C. Bose Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 12(4), Chennai 600 001. Chennai - 45. [Pan:Aaops9619R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Balina Suresh Babu, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 28.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Long Term Capital Gains Tax Levied Based On The Duplicate Copy Of The Sale Deed.

68,360/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 07.03.2012. After considering the details filed against statutory notices, the assessment under section

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

Section 147 will come into play and only tangible material is required to reopen the concluded assessment and there is no requirement of having fresh material to reopen concluded assessment. It was submitted that if audit objections is based on factual errors, then it can be a valid ground for reopening of the concluded assessment