Asstt. CIT v. Justice T.S. Arunachalam

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT & Ors. v. K. Ramachandra Rao 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1933 (Karn-HC)
REFERRED CIT v Sardarmal Kothari 2008 TaxPub(DT) 2081 (Mad-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. 1973 TaxPub(DT) 0421 (SC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1824 (Chen-Trib) : (2020) 078 ITR (Trib) 0290 IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH N.R.S. GANESAN, J.M. & A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. Asstt. CIT v. Justice T.S. Arunachalam I.T.A. No. 2455/Mds/2017 30 January, 2018 Against Revenue Appellant by: AR.V. Sreenivasan, Joint Commissioner Respondent by: P.H. Arvind Pandian, Senior Advocate, Amrith Bhargav & Hari Sankar Mani, Advocates ORDER *A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.* This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-4, Chennai, dated 21-7-2017 in ITA No. 180/2016-17/Assessment year 2014- 15/Commissioner (Appeals)-4 for the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 250(6) read with section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The Revenue has raised five grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 1,72,35,484 with respect to the disallowance of deduction under section 54(2) of the Act for not depositing the residue sale proceeds in capital gain scheme account within the stipulated period under section 139(1) of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 1824 (Chen-Trib) : (2020) 078 ITR (Trib) 0290

IN THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH

N.R.S. GANESAN, J.M. & A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.

Asstt. CIT v. Justice T.S. Arunachalam

I.T.A. No. 2455/Mds/2017

30 January, 2018

Against Revenue

Appellant by: AR.V. Sreenivasan, Joint Commissioner

Respondent by: P.H. Arvind Pandian, Senior Advocate, Amrith Bhargav & Hari Sankar Mani, Advocates

ORDER

A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-4, Chennai, dated 21-7-2017 in ITA No. 180/2016-17/Assessment year 2014- 15/Commissioner (Appeals)-4 for the assessment year 2014-15 passed under section 250(6) read with section 143(3) of the Act.

2. The Revenue has raised five grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance made by the learned assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 1,72,35,484 with respect to the disallowance of deduction under section 54(2) of the Act for not depositing the residue sale proceeds in capital gain scheme account within the stipulated period under section 139(1) of the Act.