ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

price was around ` 3 ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 30 -: lacs per acre at that point of time of the land in that area as there was increased market activities in the year 2008 and not ` 1 lacs per acre as is recorded in the sale deed dated 11.09.2008. The learned VAO has also stated that this land however could not fetch

ANTHIAH PANCRAS,TIRUVANNAMALAI vs. ITO WARD 1, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for ay: 2008-09 shall

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

price was around ` 3 ITA Nos.27 & 28/Chny/2017 :- 30 -: lacs per acre at that point of time of the land in that area as there was increased market activities in the year 2008 and not ` 1 lacs per acre as is recorded in the sale deed dated 11.09.2008. The learned VAO has also stated that this land however could not fetch

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)

54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the the Commissioner

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)

54F of the Act and assigned certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before certain reasons for that. Therefore, the larger issue was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the the Commissioner of Appeals, and in such circumstances, the the Commissioner

SHRI RAMASWAMY SHIVARAMAN,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.571/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17

price of M/s.CL Educate Ltd., when it was allotted to the assessee on 07.09.2015 and subsequent transfer of shares to his mother at a much lesser rate of Rs.179.15 per share, and opined that transaction of purchase of property by transfer of equity shares is nothing but an arranged transaction between two related parties and hence, cannot be considered

DCIT, NCC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KEEZHAYUR SOWRIRAJAN SREENIVASAN,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

price agreed on 2006, without considering the inflation in the real estate market that had happened in these years. The question arises is that will anyone sell their right at a lower rate especially in a immovable property, when the market rates have grown manifold. Further, it can be mentioned here that the assessee has not even explored the possibility

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 and market value of flats. It was explanation of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has made addition without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing being heard to the assessee Further, before invoking provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, the Assessing Officer should have referred valuation to the valuation cell. 20 Therefore, pleaded that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. TEJENDRA KUMAR GOLECHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

Price as on 31-03-97 Rs. 9,80,000/- (F.Y. 1996-97) ------------------ Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 25,39,800/- ------------------ Sale Consideration Rs. 35,19,800/- Less Indexed cost of acquisition 980000 x 519 (F.Y. 06-07) 305 (F.Y. 96-97) Rs. 16,67,606/- ------------------ Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 18,52,194/- ------------------ Capital Gain on Sale of Land

ACIT NON CORP. CIRCLE 1 , COIMBATORE vs. P.SUBRAMANIAN , COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1670/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

54F of the Act. The assessee further claimed deduction under Section 54EC of the Act to the extent of ₹50,00,000/-. According to the Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel, the Assessing Officer found that the share purchase agreement 3 I.T.A. No.1670/Chny/17 discloses the sale of shares at ₹81/- per share to M/s Tube Investments of India Limited. There

ASHA MARTHANDA PILLAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

54F of the Act, assessee had to purchase within a period of one year or before two years after the date on which transfer took place, a residential house or assessee had to construct a residential house within a period of three years after the date of sale. Here, in our opinion, the intention of the assessee was to purchase

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

price of each share of Rs. 320 instead of Rs. 400 per share( Rs. 15 crores/375000 shares), which led to invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 by learned CIT. The second issue on which learned CIT invoked revisionary powers u/s 263 was with respect to the deduction ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 25 -: allowed by AO u/s 54F

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

price of each share of Rs. 320 instead of Rs. 400 per share( Rs. 15 crores/375000 shares), which led to invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 by learned CIT. The second issue on which learned CIT invoked revisionary powers u/s 263 was with respect to the deduction ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 25 -: allowed by AO u/s 54F

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

price of each share of Rs. 320 instead of Rs. 400 per share( Rs. 15 crores/375000 shares), which led to invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 by learned CIT. The second issue on which learned CIT invoked revisionary powers u/s 263 was with respect to the deduction ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 25 -: allowed by AO u/s 54F

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

price of each share of Rs. 320 instead of Rs. 400 per share( Rs. 15 crores/375000 shares), which led to invocation of revisionary powers u/s 263 by learned CIT. The second issue on which learned CIT invoked revisionary powers u/s 263 was with respect to the deduction ITA No.307/Chny/2010 & ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 25 -: allowed by AO u/s 54F

WINVEST HOLDINGS (I) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

price and commercial terms; Identification and appointment of merchant banker (s) and other advisors and coordinating with them: Prepare planning document, budgeting financials, cash report and cash flow projections, detailed report on financial operating and business plans; Undertake market research, market studies, long—term and short – term strategic plans and valuation analysis. Provide a detailed report on the process involved

SMT. RENU AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10(5),, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 263 dated 22/3/2019, by admitting the appeal on record and disposing the case on merits of the issues involved.” I.T.A No.271/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 3. From the above, it is clear that there is a delay in filing of the appeal on the basis of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. In our opinion, in the affidavit the assessee

SASIKALA RAGHUPATHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.366/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, New No.60, Old No.100, Central Circle 3(1), Iv Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaafr5481B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Ca Jharna B. Harilal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit

transfer of expenses where without application of mind and without conducting necessary enquiries. (v) Subsequently consequent to search action initiated U/s.132 of the Act, CIT(A) dropped the proceedings U/s.263 of the Act on 18.02.2014 on the ground that the proceedings U/s.153A of the Act has overtaken the proceedings U/s.263 of the Act. (vi) Thereafter the Ld.AO passed order U/s.143