Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT

108 ITR 73High Court1977#5178 most cited

What is Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT authority for?

An appeal before the Tribunal is incompetent if the assessee is not aggrieved by any part of the order of the lower authority. This principle applies when there is no 'cause of action' arising from the order.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ramanlal Kamdar v CIT · appeal before Tribunal · incompetent appeal · aggrieved party · cause of action · section 154 · rectification proceedings · ITAT · CIT(A)

Issues it is cited on

appeal before the tribunalpersoncompanysection 143(3)nfactotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT

SANJEEVA REDDY TALLA,MEDCHAL MANDAL vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…Commissioner, cannot be aggrieved by that part of the order to enable it to file an appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, such an appeal, neither competent nor capable of being entertained by the Tribunal. 20. In the case of Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 73 (Mad.), the appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was against the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore Bench and one of the substantial question of law which was framed for consideration, was "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the proceedings under Section 154, were rightly invoked."…

KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KUNOWN AS KUL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

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

ITA 539/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

…t of the impugned order. In deciding so, apart from the plain words of the Act itself, I rely upon the authority of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT 123 ITR 181 (All.), Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT 108 ITR 73 (Mad) and that of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375 (Bom.). In view of the above the present appeal is rejected at its threshold. 5 5.3 As the appeal has been rejected decision on individual grounds of appeal is not required.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1515/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…proposition, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- a) Jivatlal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assess…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

…proposition, the ld.counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- a) Jivatlal Purtapshi v. CIT (65 ITR 261) (Bom) b) Dr. D.Y. Patil Pratisthan v. DCIT for A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No. 1592 and 1616/PN/11 dated 14.12.2012. c) Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) (Madras) d) Banta Singh Kartar Singh v. CIT (125 ITR 239) (Punjab and Haryana) 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MCorp Global Pvt.Ltd.(supra), he reiterated that the 28 Tracks & Towers Infratech Pvt.Ltd. (Part IX) Tribunal has no power to take back the benefit granted by the AO and thereby enhancing the assess…

CENTRAL MEDICAL STORES,VALANCHERY vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

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

ITA 97/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Central Medical Store The Income Tax Officer Central Bazar, Valanchery Ward - 1, Tirur Vs. Tirur, Malapuram 679552 Malapuram 676101 Pan – Aaefc4396B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 274Section 44A

…ng cases that no appeal lies against agreed additions unless the assessee proves that the agreement of the assessee was obtained through coercion or that the same was malafide: (i) Rameshchandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 1687 ITR 375 (ii) Rmlal Kamdar Vs. CIT (Mad) 108 ITR 73 (iii) Mahesh B. Shah Vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130 (iv) Sterling Machine Tools Vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181 4 M/s. Central Medical Store 11. In the present case, the partner of the assessee firm himself accepted the addition proposed by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, as clearly stated in the assessment order. Though it was allege…

ITO -32(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. LIBERAL REALTORS LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 450/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…t Commissioner, cannot be aggrieved by that part of the order to enable it to file an appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, such an appeal, neither competent nor capable of being entertained by the Tribunal. 20. In the case of RamanlalKamdar v. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 73 (Mad.), the appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was against the order passed by the ITAT, Bangalore Bench and one of the substantial question of law which was framed for consideration, was "whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been rightly held that the proceedings under Section 154, were rightly invoked."…

M/S MINERA STEEL & POWER PVT LTD ,BELLARY vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

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

ITA 515/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H Siva Prasad Reddy, I.T.PFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…AO to make an addition u/s 41(1)(a) of the Act. Once the assessee has given consent, the assessee cannot file appeal against that addition. For this purpose, he relied on the following judgments: a. The Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar Vs. CIT 108 ITR 73, the Hon'ble Court have held that: “Once the assessee had stated that it had no objection to the proposed revision and the Income-tax Officer had also revised the original assessment as proposed by him, the assessee could not be said to have been aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Officer.” b. The Kerala High Court in the case of Mahesh &Sh…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. RENUKA GATED COMMUNITY , ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Renuka Gated Circle-1, Community, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Aanfr 2245 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR
Section 143(3)

…right in admitting appeal against agreed addition as the assessee has failed to prove coercion or malafide. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions on this issue: a) Rameshchandr & Co vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. b) Ramanlal Kamdas vs. CIT (Mad.) 108 ITR 73. c) Mahesh B. Shah vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130. d) Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181. 4. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal.” 3. None appeared before us to represent the case of the assessee. However, on examining the record, We find that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable as per the CBDT Circula…

DCIT, ROURKELA vs. SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR AHLUWALIA, SUNDERGARH

In the result, appeal of the department is allowed and that of the

ITA 63/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rameshchandra And Company vs CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bom), Hon’ble P& H High Court in the case of Banta Singh Kartar Singh vs CIT, 125 ITR 239(P&H) and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs CIT, 108 ITR 73 (Mad) and submitted that the appeal to ld CIT(A) lies only when the assessee aggrieved by the assessment or reassessment order and when the assessee, during the P a g e 5 | 20 ITA No.6 3/CTK /2 015 ITA No.0 1/CTK /2 015 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 11- 201 2 assessment proceedings, has voluntarily agreed to accept a particular addition before the Ass…

SMT. JAGJIT KAUR CHAWLA,MOHALI vs. DCIT, MOHALI

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

ITA 189/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR
Section 250(6)Section 36

…he made it under mistaken belief of fact or law , that he should make an application for rectification to the authority which passed the order based upon the statement. Until rectification is made, an appeal is not competent. (7) Ramanlal Kamdar Vs. CIT (Mad) 108 ITR 73. We are of the opinion that the appeals to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and to the Tribunal, by the assessee, were incompetent. We have already referred to the fact that one of the partners of the assessee, viz., Shri Chandulal Kamdar, appeared before the Income-tax Officer on October 27, 1967, and stated that the assessee had no objection…

SHRI NARENDRASINH MAHENDRASINH CHARAN,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2481/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri Narendrasinh The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Mahendrasinh Charan Ward-1 Vs. G-404, Panacea Residency Himatnagar Opp. Swami Narayan Park Kathwada Road, Naroda Ahmedabad-382 330 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqqpc 7046 N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 68

…ings of Assessing Officer on the ground that once assessee agreed for addition, then he has no right to challenge that finding in an appeal. The Ld. first appellate authority has made reference to three following three decisions: 1. Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT :: 108 ITR 73 (mad.) 2. Mahesh B.Shah vs. ACIT & Anr. :: 238 ITR 130(ker.) and 3. Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT ::123 ITR 181 (alla.). 4. It is true that admission being declaration against an interest is a good evidence because that will prohibit the Investigating Officer to make enquiry further. Such admission would work as an estoppel against the person wh…

ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II, CHENNAI vs. B.JAYALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2003[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2018AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1512 To 1514/Chny/2003 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1995-96 To 1997-98 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Mrs.B.Jayalakshmi, Flat No.195, 15Th Street, Income Tax, Salary Circle-Ii Iii Avenue Anna Nagar West Chennai-600 034. Extn. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: 827-J] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

…earned AR, there could be no appeal against an item accepted by the Assessing Officer in ITA Nos.1512 to 1514/2003 :- 7 -: remand proceedings. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raman Lal Kamdar Vs.CIT (108 ITR 73). Further according to him, appeals on issues where the remand report went in favour of the assesse, went against the spirit of the National Litigation Policy, presented by the Hon’ble Union Minister for Law & Justice, and adopted at the National Consultation for strengthening judiciary towards reducing pendency and delays, held on 24/25 of Oct…

ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II, CHENNAI vs. B.JAYALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1514/CHNY/2003[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1512 To 1514/Chny/2003 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1995-96 To 1997-98 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Mrs.B.Jayalakshmi, Flat No.195, 15Th Street, Income Tax, Salary Circle-Ii Iii Avenue Anna Nagar West Chennai-600 034. Extn. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: 827-J] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

…earned AR, there could be no appeal against an item accepted by the Assessing Officer in ITA Nos.1512 to 1514/2003 :- 7 -: remand proceedings. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raman Lal Kamdar Vs.CIT (108 ITR 73). Further according to him, appeals on issues where the remand report went in favour of the assesse, went against the spirit of the National Litigation Policy, presented by the Hon’ble Union Minister for Law & Justice, and adopted at the National Consultation for strengthening judiciary towards reducing pendency and delays, held on 24/25 of Oct…

ACIT SALARY CIRCLE II, CHENNAI vs. B.JAYALAKSHMI, CHENNAI

In the result, all these three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1513/CHNY/2003[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1512 To 1514/Chny/2003 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1995-96 To 1997-98 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Mrs.B.Jayalakshmi, Flat No.195, 15Th Street, Income Tax, Salary Circle-Ii Iii Avenue Anna Nagar West Chennai-600 034. Extn. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: 827-J] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

…earned AR, there could be no appeal against an item accepted by the Assessing Officer in ITA Nos.1512 to 1514/2003 :- 7 -: remand proceedings. Reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Raman Lal Kamdar Vs.CIT (108 ITR 73). Further according to him, appeals on issues where the remand report went in favour of the assesse, went against the spirit of the National Litigation Policy, presented by the Hon’ble Union Minister for Law & Justice, and adopted at the National Consultation for strengthening judiciary towards reducing pendency and delays, held on 24/25 of Oct…

ACIT, MADURAI vs. A.V.NAGARAJAN, SIVAGANGAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for all the years are 15

ITA 3227/CHNY/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. B. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 153A

…gment of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Jivatlal Purtapshi vs. CIT, 65 ITR 261, that of Hon’ble Mysore High Court in the case of M.M. Annaiah vs. CIT, 76 ITR 582 and that of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT, 108 ITR 73. In any case as per the ld. Authorised Representative, ld. Assessing Officer had verified the evidence produced by the assessee and had reached an opinion that such evidence was acceptable on each of the issues on which relief was given by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). As for addition made for Shri. K.K.Umadevan, contention of the ld…

M/S LAXMINARAYAN COTTON COMPANY ,RAICHUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, JDIT (DR)

…eal of the assessee was heard ex parte qua the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT as reported in 108 ITR 73 and also on a judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Kanshi Ram Wadhwa vs. CIT as reported in 138 ITR 830. He submitted that in both these judgments, it was held that in the case of agreed addition made by the AO, the appeal of the assessee before AAC and tribunal is incompetent. At this juncture, a query was raise…

M/S. LAKSHMI AMMAL MEMORIAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2852/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.V.Sreenivasan, JICIT, D.RFor Respondent: 20.06.2017
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2Section 2(15)

…the assessee itself agreed for disallowance before the Learned Assessing Officer, now it cannot have any grievance for such disallowance. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar Vs. Learned Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1977] 108 ITR 73 (Mad) wherein held that:- “We have already referred to the fact that one of the partners of the assessee, viz., Shri Chandulal Kamdar, appeared before the Income-tax Officer on October 27, 1967, and stated that the assessee had no objection to the proposed revision. Once the assessee had stated that it had no objection to the proposed revision a…

PHA INDIA PVT LTD.,SRIPERAMBUDUR vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 891/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.891/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. M/S. Pha India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.C-16 & C-25, Income Tax, Sipcot Industrial Park, Company Circle 5(2) Irrungattukottai, Chennai. Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu 602 117. [Pan Aaacp 6585A]

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Ashish Tripathy, JCIT
Section 145A

…ess this ground before us. Assessee has also not explained whether it is a mistake of facts or law in not pressing this ground before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT 108 ITR 73 had held that once the assessee has accepted that there was no objection to the assessment order, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by that order and cannot appeal against before Appellate Authority. Further, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Lalsingh Estate Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 216 ITR 644 had also held that a person cannot say at one tim…

MOHAN VASANTHA KUMARESAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 577/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT
Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 577/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. Shri. Mohan Vasantha Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kumaresan, Non Corporate Ward 5(1) No.12, Kamaraj Park Street, Chennai Royapuram, Chennai 600 013 [PAN AACPK 6777G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT. सुनवाई क"…

MUTHURAJAN PADMAVATHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 576/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT
Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.576/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2012-2013. Muthurajan Padmavathi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.12, Kamaraj Park Street, Non Corporate Ward 5(4) Royapuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 013 [PAN AALPP 1234Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax