Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT

310 ITR 195High Court2009#13988 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 253(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 253delay in filing appealsection 25section 143(2)section 144section 143documentsection 250nfaccompanyinterestsection 14

Judgments citing Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT

Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Namakkal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)

…port, learned counsel has filed a decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of 3 I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/25 Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) and also a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195). 3. We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of R…

Dk 140 Uthangarai Pueshes Teachers & Emp. Co-Op Thrift & Credit Scoiety Ltd., Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

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

ITA 1227/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1227/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dk140 Uthangarai Pueshes Teachers Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Emp. Co-Op. Thrift & Credit Ward 1, Society Limited, 140, Uthangarai, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri-635 001. [Pan:Aagad3195A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 253(6)Section 44ASection 80P

…t') was only 500/-. In support, learned counsel has filed a decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) and also a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195). 3. We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of R…

S.S.S. Export, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1225/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1225/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 S.S.S. Export, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 36/2, Mariyamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Valliamma Pudur, Nambiyur, Erode. Gobichettipalayam, Erode 638 458. [Pan:Abwfs8232K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Treating Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period As 2

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 253(6)Section 69A

…t') was only 500/-. In support, learned counsel has filed a decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) and also a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195). 3. We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of R…

Subramaniyam Kulandhaivel, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 976/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 976/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 Shri Subramaniyam The Income Tax Officer, Kulandhaivel, Vs. Ward 1, No.7/51, Vadugapalayam, Namakkal. Mavureddipatti Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal – 637 212. Pan: Aznpk 3744M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Kumar Chandan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Chandan, JCIT
Section 250Section 253(6)

…t') was only 500/-. In support, learned counsel has filed a decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) and also a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195). 3. We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for nonprosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of Ra…

Aasife Biriyani Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2460/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2460/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Aasife Biriyani Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Glrs, No.325, Door No.11/3Q, Corporate Circle 1(1) Railway Station Road, Chennai. Azharkhana, Alandur, Chennai 600 016. [Pan: Aamca 9955H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram & Ms. Sonali Kothari.S. Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.T.M. Suganthamala, Irs, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram and MsFor Respondent: Ms.T.M. Suganthamala, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 253(6)

…t') was only 500/-. In support, learned counsel has filed a decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) and also a decision of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195). 3. We find that CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal for non- prosecution and had not considered the issue on merits. In our opinion, in such a situation, the fees paid has to be as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act. The assessee has rightly paid the sum of 500/- as stipulated in the said clause of the Act. In the case of…

Jatinder Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 18, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1670/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1670/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) Jatinder Pal Singh, vs. DCIT, C/o D-6/13, Vasant Vihar, Central Circle 18, New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. (PAN : ALPPS9874G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2023 Date of Order : 22.06.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the or…

M/S. Cosmos Fiber Glass Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3486/DEL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. &For Respondent: SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3486/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2002-03 M/S COSMOS FIBRE GLASS LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1), C/O M/S RRA TAXINDIA NEW DELHI D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 (PAN: AAACC0289Q) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: DR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. Revenue by:SH. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 29.12.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2002-03. 2. The grounds raised read…

Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT (310 ITR 195) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax