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

price of Rs.2.35 crores for developing business in Chennai. Therefore, we find two submissions taken by the assessee in response to the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer. The said replies in part were reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his order. The Assessing Officer found the said replies were contrary to each other and determined capital gain

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

price of Rs.2.35 crores for developing business in Chennai. Therefore, we find two submissions taken by the assessee in response to the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer. The said replies in part were reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his order. The Assessing Officer found the said replies were contrary to each other and determined capital gain

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

price of Rs.2.35 crores for developing business in Chennai. Therefore, we find two submissions taken by the assessee in response to the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer. The said replies in part were reproduced by the Assessing Officer in his order. The Assessing Officer found the said replies were contrary to each other and determined capital gain

GOKULAKRISHNA,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 8(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay\napplication is dismissed

short term capital gains and\n\n-7-\nITA No.1088/Chny/2025\nS.A. No. 48/Chny/25\nadded to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, the CIT(A)\nconfirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.\n9. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.\n10. The Id. Counsel for the assessee Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate has\nsubmitted that

M/S MERCANTILE VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.623/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Mercantile Ventures Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of- No.88, Spic House, Income Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Chennai. [Pan: Aaicm 6095 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Shri P.V.Sudhakar, Advocate : ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.01.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of : 14.02.2024 Pronouncement

transfer of unquoted equity shares, even though, the assessee has escalated share price when the shares were issued to said companies and subsequently, sold said shares in the next month as per Valuation Report carried under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and as per said report, Fair Market Value of the shares were ranging from Rs.0.50

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Price of the land paid by him. In Traders and Mines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, ITA No.870/Chny/2017 for AY 2012-13 & ITA Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd. :: 38 :: (supra) the Income-tax Officer had also determined the cost of the lease hold fights on proportionate basis. Once the cost

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-\nITA Nos\nAssessment\nResult\nYear\nPartly allowed

term capital gains and its deletion by the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.\nAO has discussed the issue in para 12.1 to 12.14 of his order. The\nLd.DR explained the following brief factual matrix of the case. The\nassessee had claimed in its return of income loss on account of sale of\nshares of Rs.2

M/S. MAHINDRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD - 4 (1),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14\n& 2014-15 stands dismissed

terms of money may be difficult but is none-the-less of a money value\nand the best valuation possible must be made. Viscount Simon in Gold Coast\nSelection Trust Ltd. v. Inspector of Taxes, 17 ITR 19 (supp) observed\n\"valuation is not an exact science. Mathe- matical certainty is not demanded,\nnor indeed is it possi

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. TVS INVESTMENTS LRD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal as well as the assessee's Cross Objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.262/Chny/2017 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit M/S. Tvs Capital Funds (P) Limited (Formerly Known As Tvs Investments Limited) Corporate Circle-3(1) बनाम/ Jayalakshmi Estates, Chennai-600 034. Vs. No.29, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1154-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. D. Praveen (Jcit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

short term capital gain on investment and it cannot be allowed. Admittedly, in this case, net worth of TVSF&S is negative. TVSF&S is incurring continuously heavy losses and the said company went out on delisting, pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Board of lndiac(Delisting of Securities) Guidelines 2003. Further, TVS Investments Ltd. holds

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

termed by the assessee as 13 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 non compete fee, IPR value, brand value, etc. to evade payment of capital gains tax on the transfer of the software division for the reason that goodwill alone was taxable for the assessment year 2000- 01, compared to the transfer of other intangible assets like non compete fee, brand value

MR. AMAR RAHMAN,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1352/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Amar Rahman Acit बनाम/ 547, Ideal Home Township Corporate Circle-1(1) 12Th Cross, Rajarajeswari Nagar Vs. Chennai. Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560 098. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadpr-7258-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Quadir Hoseyn (Advocate) & Dr.L.Natarajan (Ca)- Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr

Short-Term Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee, is contrary to law, erroneous and unsustainable on the facts of the case. Long-Term Capital Gains Rs.32,40,02,829/-: 2. The CIT(A) erred in his conclusion that the Long-Term Capital Gains arising on the retained sales consideration in respect of transfer of an industrial undertaking (containing

BRAHMAR CELLULOSE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.189/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 Brahmar Cellulose Products Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Ameen Manors, S1 & S2, Income Tax, Second Floor, B Block, No. 138, Corporate Circle 1(2), Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aadcb3888M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

price and market value of the factory building in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The ld. DR Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT drew our attention to page 2 of the assessment order and argued that the assessee admitted net short term capital gains of ₹.14,61,66,217/-, which is the net figure by considering the STCG

VINODHINI,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.921/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Mrs. Vinodhini Acit बनाम/ Flat No.14, Door No.98, Central Circle-1(2) Harrington Road, Chetpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 031. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bmapv-2726-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-09-2024

transfer of the agricultural lands under consideration thereby vitiating the related findings both in the assessment order and the appellate order. 10. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the prescription of additional condition of carrying agricultural activities being not statutorily prescribed, imposing such condition artificially to reject the claim of tax exemption for the sale of exempted category

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

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

transfer pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex pricing adjustment towards royalty receivable at the rate of 2% at ex- ITA No.672/Chny/201 /Chny/2017 (AY 2012-13) M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. M/s.TVS Motor Co. Ltd. :: 16 :: factory sale at Rs.2,15,56,000/ factory

N.DHEENADHAYAALAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 16(5), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.N.Dheenadhayalan, V. The Income Tax Officer, A2, Fth 2, 4Th Floor,Vgn Non-Corporate Ward-16(5), Minerva,No.273, Gurusamy Salai, Chennai. Nolumbur, Chennai-600 095. [Pan: Aaepd 2529 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

short “MoU") with M/s.Tecpro Systems Ltd., for transfer of shares in M/s.Ambica Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.8,28,47,887/-. The said MoU has been acted upon by entering into Share Purchase Agreement between the assessee and M/s.Tecpro Systems Ltd., on 19.08.2011 and agreed to transfer shares of M/s.Ambica Projects (India) Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration

MANJU BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Term Capital Gains (LTCG) 3.1 The assessee earned LTCG on sale of 4200 shares of M/s Turbo Tech Engineering Ltd. and claimed the same to be exempt u/s 10(38). It was noted that the shares were purchased by the assessee for Rs.1.50 Lacs whereas the same were sold at exorbitant price of Rs.20.11 Lacs. The purchase of shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. M. MAHADEVAN, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are decided as under:-

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1825/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1826/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2019-20

short) to the wife of the assessee, Smt. Badr Unissa amounts to a colourable device to avoid tax liability. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has clearly mentioned in the assessment order that the transaction of transfer of the asset under slumpp sale to the wife of the assessee is mere make- believe arrangement