Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

291 ITR 314High Court2007#13935 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 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 250nfacinterestsection 14total income

Judgments citing Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

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)

…fees as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was only 500/-. In support, 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.…

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

…as per the assessee, the fees as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') 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.…

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

…as per the assessee, the fees as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') 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.…

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)

…as per the assessee, the fees as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') 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. T…

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)

…as per the assessee, the fees as per clause (d) of Section 253(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') 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.…

Bijay Kumar Shaw, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(3), Kolkata

ITA 457/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 253(6)Section 253(6)(d)

…a memorandum of cross objections referred to in sub-section (4)." The Ld. AR also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (i) Decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 291 ITR 314 (Kar); (ii) V. Vasudevan Vs. ACIT (2012) 52 SOT 72 and (iii) Dr. A. Naresh Babu Vs. ITO (2010) 5 ITR 485 Accordingly, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee had paid the prescribed fee and prayed for admission of the appeal. In response to this, no arguments were advanced by the Ld. DR. 3. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and…

M/S Cargo Hindling Corporation, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-28(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1365/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Dutta, JCIT., Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234Section 40Section 40a

…en the only issue is in respect of condonation of delay the appeal fee payable is only Rs.500/- and in support of such a contention he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajkamal Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 291 ITR 314 (Karn.). The Ld. AR also filed a copy of order dated 25.08.2015 of a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 1363 & 1364/Kol/2014 in the case of M/s. M.E. Enterprises Vs. ITO and M/s. Hooghly Traders Vs. ITO respectively, which are said to be the concerns of the assessee. In this decision the coordinate bench of this Tribunal while following…

Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CIT (291 ITR 314) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax