1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai

118 Taxmann.com 80High Court2020#18876 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai

SHRI THIRUMARAN PANDIAN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 15 (4),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3107/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3107/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri T. Pandian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/O P. Thirumaran, Plot No. 4, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Shalimar Garden Fifth Street, Chennai. Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115. [Pan:Afnpp7417G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023 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) 15, Chennai, Dated 30.05.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Delayed By 91 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3107/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri T. Pandian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, S/o P. Thirumaran, Plot No. 4, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Shalimar Garden Fifth Street, Chennai. Injambakkam, Chennai 600 115. [PAN:AFNPP7417G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respo…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. PAN: AAFPM5272R ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent by : Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 18/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 12/10/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commis…

1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai (118 Taxmann.com 80) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax