CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

153 ITR 596High Court1985#564 most cited

What is CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. authority for?

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. · section 253(5) · section 253 · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · period of delay · condoning 21 years delay · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 250Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 143(1)Section 147Section 246A

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 51section 80ibreasonable causesection 17section 139(4)delay in filing appealcondonation of delaysection 253section 274section 154prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/BANG/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. I have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 15 condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the ap…

Bethala Petropacks Pvt Ltd., (Formerly Known As Deepak Extrusions Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. I have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 13 of 15 condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the ap…

Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 192/AHD/2021[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.192-193/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Shri Biren Dhirajlal Shah, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.441-1, Sector-22, Vs. Ward-1, Nr. Police Chowkey, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 17Section 69

…r the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 held as under: “Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 17…

M/S. Child Development Project Officer, Shivamogga vs. Income-Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

…l. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. reported in ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 9 of 17 153 ITR 596 considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. 17. Further Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charit…

Shri. Marate Venkateshkumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Hubli

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

ITA 819/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B. Venugopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250Section 69A

…. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Marate Venkateshkumar, Bangalore Page 7 of 13 Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 71 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Rural Education Society, Tumkur vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 582/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

…easonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. reported in 153 ITR 596 considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. 24. Further Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charita…

Dilip Premnarayan Kabra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 17(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1774/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledilip Premnarayan Kabra V. Dcit – Circle 17(1) 117, Kautilya Bhavan 4Th Floor, Arihant Mansion G Block, Bkc Avenue 3 K.N. Road, Masjid Bunder Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400009 Pan: Ahcpk9734A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mr. Aditya Maheswari Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

…emnarayan Kabra cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Silver Sand Coop Housing Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebuilding No. 12, Silver Sands Chs Ltd., Bangalore Post Bag No. 2 S.V. Road, Piramal Nagar Electronic City, Post Office Goregaon (W), Mumbai - 400062 Bangalore - 560100 Pan: Aadas5600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 245Section 80P

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6916/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Om Sawmi Smaran Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6915/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Naveen Kishor Mohnot, Mumbai vs. ITO-25(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Mr Ganesh Anandrao Ingulkar, Mumabi vs. Asstt.Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleganesh Anandrao Ingulkar V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax Centralized Processing Center B/502, Shivram Park Income Tax Department Opp. Ashok Kedare Chowk Bengaluru, Karnataka-560500 Tembipada Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Aappi6881C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ketan Ved Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

Smt Rupa Himanshu Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3144/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt Rupa Himanshu Shrimankar V. Acit – 24(3) 107, Sagar Avenue, S.V. Road Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400056 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Avups8496B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Kiran Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 68Section 69C

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered 7 Smt Rupa Himanshu Shrimankar the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot b…

Ajay Parasmal Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO-30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as above

ITA 2823/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleajay Parasmal Kothari V. Income Tax Officer –30(1)(1) 202, Prateek Apartment Bandra Kurla Complex Main Mamlatdarwadi Road Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Aacpk4073B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Ashwin Chhag Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and 6 Ajay Parasmal Kothari reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 2819 days cannot be consid…

M/S. Snr Rural Education Trust, Puttur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1161/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)

…hat the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. (ii) The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadar and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the delay of condonation and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. (iii) The Chennai Tribunal by majority opinion in the case of People Educatio…

M/S. Rmz Hotels Private Limited, Bangalore vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

…as a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. I have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 93 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

Deepak Bajaj, Kolkata vs. CIT- 14, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Chatterjee, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 263

…dia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Reported in [1979] 118 ITR 507 (SC) iii) Mercedes Benze Education Academy vs. ITO in ITA No. 745/Pun/2015 v) Vijay Visin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) vi) CIT vs. KSP Shanmugavel Nadai & Ors. (153 ITR 596 ) (Madras- High Court) vii) Orbit Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 513/Kol/2020 for AY 2012-13 dated 22.04.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has condoned the delay of 1535 days for the reason that the assessee was suffering from lungs infection and diabetic and other oldage ailments and assessee was not advised properly by the legal consul…

Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-10, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1022/AHD/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Nov 2022AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1022 To 1025/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 To 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5Th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 292BSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1022 to 1025/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: (1992-1993 to 1995-1996) Shri Mahesh P. Gandhi, A.C.I.T., D-404, 5th Floor, Vs. Circle-10, Dharnidhar Tower, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad. PAN: ABDPG8899D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.D. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 23/11/2022 आदेश/O R…

Shri Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 153/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.153/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Abjpv2934B

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 254

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.153/AHD/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Pravinkumar Hiralal Vora, D.C.I.T., A-71, Trithbhumi Apartment, Vs. Circle-2, Nr. Thakorbhai Desai Hall, Ahmedabad. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad-380006. PAN: ABJPV2934B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.D. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/08/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncemen…

Mansi Finance Chennai Limited, Chennai vs. The ACIT, CC 4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ 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. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. No. 22, Mansi Mansion, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Room No. 430, 4th Floor, Main Building, Mulla Sahib Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 79. Aayakar Bhavan, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [PAN:AAACM…