M.KIRAN KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

price in stock exchange was sky rocketed. The AO has taken support from the trading details verified by SEBI on BSE exchange. Therefore, he was of the opinion that long term capital gain derived from transfer

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.

price whether or not received during the year of deemed transfer. In such an eventuality, hardship may be caused to the owner who would have paid full tax. No doubt, such a situation could be avoided if the contention of the applicant is accepted. On deep consideration, however, we find that the construction of the relevant provision should

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

gain arising from the transfer of long- term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Further, Section 2(42C) of the Act defines 'slump sale' as a transfer of one or more undertakings for a lumpsum sale consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets

MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,CHENGALPUT vs. ITO, CHENNAI

long-term capital gains.\n2. The assessee preferred an appeal to the AAC. Before the AAC, in addition to\ncontending that the rights transferred under the document cannot be\nconsidered to be a capital asset, it was also contended that there was no\ntransfer of any capital asset. The AAC held that the term \"property\" would\ninclude, in the case

G.NARENDAR CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2) , CHENNAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for 14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

prices of the shares of the penny stock companies were manipulated to 20 to 25 times so that investors made bogus long term capital gains on sale of its shares. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that Shri. Prakash Kumar Jojodia had admitted floating a number of companies through which transactions in cash, cheques and RTGS credits were carried

ADVENT COMPUTER SERVICES LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COMPANY WARD 1(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.222/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S. Advent Computer Services Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.M/S. Anil Nair Associates Income Tax, Casa Blanca, 1St Floor,11,Casa Major Company Ward-1(1), Road. Egmore, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 008. Pan:Aacea 0326L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

long term capital gain derived from transfer of shares cannot be accepted. The learned CIT(A) has also negated another arguments taken by the assessee that when there is no demand of tax consequent to determination of capital gains after adjustment of carried forward loss, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed by holding that even

MR. RAJENDERA KUMAR GOLLAPUDI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

long-term capital asset, other than capital gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of shares in, or debentures of, an Indian company referred to in the first proviso, the provisions of clause (ii) shall have effect as if for the words 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of any improvement', the words 'indexed cost of acquisition' and 'indexed

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term

SAMARJIT SINGH CHABRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

transfer in terms of Section 2(47) of the Act is 9 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 not attracted to the facts of the present case and it is pleaded for directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in this regard. 19. The ld. AR has, further, submitted that the re-computation of the long term

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

transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deductible. The facts of the present case are totally different. Indian Bank was neither a shareholder of KSEPL nor it had any interest in KSEPL. Further, the application filed by the bank before DRT clearly shows that

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

transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deductible. The facts of the present case are totally different. Indian Bank was neither a shareholder of KSEPL nor it had any interest in KSEPL. Further, the application filed by the bank before DRT clearly shows that

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

transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deductible. The facts of the present case are totally different. Indian Bank was neither a shareholder of KSEPL nor it had any interest in KSEPL. Further, the application filed by the bank before DRT clearly shows that

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

transferred a building belonging to it. The Hon’ble Court held payment of `2 lakhs over and above return of share capital was deductible. The facts of the present case are totally different. Indian Bank was neither a shareholder of KSEPL nor it had any interest in KSEPL. Further, the application filed by the bank before DRT clearly shows that

NIRMALA KUMARI CHORDIA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

prices of the shares of the penny stock companies were manipulated to 20 to 25 times so that investors made bogus long term capital gains on sale of its shares. Ld. Assessing Officer noted that Shri. Prakash Kumar Jojodia had admitted floating a number of companies through which transactions in cash, cheques and RTGS credits were carried

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

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

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. [12] In order to successfully invoke the provisions of Section 144C, thus, two basic conditions are required to be fulfilled: - the assessee is an eligible assessee [i.e. (i) any person in whose case the variation referred to the income or loss in the returned income

LALITHA KUMARI PRAKASH CHAND,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORP. WARD 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

price to be received by the assessee for transfer of shares and computed long term capital gain. 10. We have