← All Phrases

“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

Deepak Khandelwal, Sehore vs. ITO, Sehore

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

ITA 120/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanideepak Khandelwal Ito J.P. Market, Narsullaganj Sehore Vs. Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Agxpk7517R Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.07.2024

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)(b)

estimated at Rs.6 lac. Further, the income for the A.Y.2013-14 is also estimated at Rs.3 lac.” 5. On the appeal the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse in para 3 as under: “3. Decision: As per the provisions of the section ... careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed to fulfill the mandatory and essential conditions for admission of appeal before CIT(A) as per sec. 249(4)(b), the present appeal is liable to be held as not eligible for admission. In the result

Gargi Global Academy Sansthan, Sikar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

view of the said facts, the reasons cited by the PCIT in the above pare la irrelevant. The society has also filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment made u/s 153C which is pending for disposal, in these circumstances, on money paid by the applicant. In respect

Vivekanda Shiksha Samiti, Palwas Road, Sikar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

view of the said facts, the reasons cited by the PCIT in the above pare la irrelevant. The society has also filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment made u/s 153C which is pending for disposal, in these circumstances, on money paid by the applicant. In respect

Shri Kamlesh Purohit, Karamdi vs. ITO, Ratlam

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

ITA 150/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Kamlesh Purohit, L/H & Ito S/O Late Ramsingh Purohit, Ratlam Vs. 89/1, Village Karamdi, Ratlam (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bbbpp5709A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 144

that during the pendency of the Kamlesh Purohit assessment proceedings the assessee expired and the legal heir of the assessee then filed an appeal before CIT(A) however, the impugned order was not received by the legal heir in any mode of postal or e-mail. Only when

Rane Engine Valve Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 885/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, he disallowed these payments and added back to ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.2 The CIT(A) following the earlier order i.e., for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.28/2010-11/CIT(A)-3 dated 31.01.2017 confirmed ... u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed this payment and added back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5.2 The CIT(A) noted that firstly the payment made to a non- resident is taxable or not, will depend on facts

Parry Infrastructure Co P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1653/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Philip George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Disallowance of provision created by assessee of professional charges amounting to Rs.1,70,00,000/- Against these additions, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 4. During the course of appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has disclosed revenue from sale of plots at Rs.62

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 2815/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, he disallowed these payments and added back to ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.2 The CIT(A) following the earlier order i.e., for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.28/2010-11/CIT(A)-3 dated 31.01.2017 confirmed ... u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed this payment and added back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5.2 The CIT(A) noted that firstly the payment made to a non- resident is taxable or not, will depend on facts

Rane Engine Valve Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1477/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, he disallowed these payments and added back to ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.2 The CIT(A) following the earlier order i.e., for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.28/2010-11/CIT(A)-3 dated 31.01.2017 confirmed ... u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed this payment and added back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5.2 The CIT(A) noted that firstly the payment made to a non- resident is taxable or not, will depend on facts

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1498/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, he disallowed these payments and added back to ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.2 The CIT(A) following the earlier order i.e., for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.28/2010-11/CIT(A)-3 dated 31.01.2017 confirmed ... u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed this payment and added back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5.2 The CIT(A) noted that firstly the payment made to a non- resident is taxable or not, will depend on facts

Rane Engine Valves Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No

ITA 1497/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Accordingly, he disallowed these payments and added back to ITA Nos.1497, 1498/Chny/2017, 1477 & 2815/CHNY/2018 & 885/CHNY/2020 the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4.2 The CIT(A) following the earlier order i.e., for assessment year 2008-09 in ITA No.28/2010-11/CIT(A)-3 dated 31.01.2017 confirmed ... u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed this payment and added back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5.2 The CIT(A) noted that firstly the payment made to a non- resident is taxable or not, will depend on facts

Shri Hari Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1720/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.1719/Ahd/2019 & 2. Ita No.1720/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Shri Hari Corporation The Dy.Cit A/13, Vrundavan Park Society Vs Circle-3(1)2) Viratnagar Road, Odhav Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382 415 Pan: Absfs 9846 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay H. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Dated 03/10/201 & 04/10/2019 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

value of work-in-progress and passed an order under section 144 r.w.s. 142A of the Act. 3.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee by granting relief of Rs.22,18,856/- and substituted the addition by Rs.1

Shri Hari Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1719/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member 1. Ita No.1719/Ahd/2019 & 2. Ita No.1720/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively) Shri Hari Corporation The Dy.Cit A/13, Vrundavan Park Society Vs Circle-3(1)2) Viratnagar Road, Odhav Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 382 415 Pan: Absfs 9846 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay H. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Captioned Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Dated 03/10/201 & 04/10/2019 For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay H. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

value of work-in-progress and passed an order under section 144 r.w.s. 142A of the Act. 3.2. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of assessee by granting relief of Rs.22,18,856/- and substituted the addition by Rs.1

Harsh Patel, Gram Padliya Tehsil Depalpurdi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Indore

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

ITA 171/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniharsh Patel Ito -1(1) Gram -Padliya Tehsil- Depalpur Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bmfpp8078K Assessee By Shri Avinash Mandovara, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28 .06.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, as the appellant has failed to fulfill the necessary conditions for admission of appeal before CIT(A) as per sec. 249(4)(b), the present appeal is liable to be held as not eligible for admission and hence, the appeal ... assessee has filed return of income and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings and passed reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does

Himanshu Vedprakash Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1323/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vanita NaraFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 144Section 24Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

which was assessed under the head income on house property, after allowing deduction u/s 24 @30%. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order, but the same was also decided exparte vide order dated 20.12.2023. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed, as no evidence

Himanshu Vedprakash Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1322/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vanita NaraFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule
Section 144Section 24Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

which was assessed under the head income on house property, after allowing deduction u/s 24 @30%. 5. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order, but the same was also decided exparte vide order dated 20.12.2023. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed, as no evidence

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Workers Board [A] “I. Proposition 1 : No denial of sec. 11 relief to a trust if it had obtained registration during the pendencyof appeal before CIT(A). (i) SNDP Yogam v. ADIT (Exemption) - [(2016) 68 taxmann.com 152 (Cochin - Trib.)]- Para 7.2 / 7.3 (ii) Prem Prakash Mandal Sewa Trust

Ramdas Yadav, Hoshangabad vs. ITO-2 Itarsi, Itarsi

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

ITA 163/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniramdas Yadav, Ito -2 267 Malakhedi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149(4)(b)Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

assessee has filed return of income and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings and passed reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does

Ahlers India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 524/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 524/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ahlers India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner No.39, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Of Income Tax,, The Trapezium, Corporate Circle 1(1), Nelson Manickam Road, Chennai. Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029. Pan: Aaeca 5688H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059291012 (1) Dated 02.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.02.2016. The Impugned Giving Effect To The Order Of The Tribunal Was Framed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai Vide Order Dated 22.08.2017. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing Expenses Paid To Various Non-Resident Parties For Non-Deduction Of Tds By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,26,73,426/-. This Is The Only Limited Issue On Merits But Assessee Has Raised Various Other Issues Of Proper Opportunity Etc., Which Will Be Dealt With Later.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) to the tune of Rs.22673426/- made vide order u/s.143(1) r.w.s. 144C dated 16.2.2016 is sustained.” Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A)- NFAC vide order dated 02.06.2021 dismissed the appeal of assessee as infructuous by observing in para

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 517/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

processing of return of income disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act amounting to Rs.27,90,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).. 6.1 The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing in paras 6.6 to 6.9 as under:- “6.6 The provisions laid

K864 Murali Chennampatti Primary Agriculture Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

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

ITA 516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 516 & 517/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S. K864 Murali Chennampatti The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agriculture Co-Op Vs. Ward 2(1), Credit Society, Erode. Mulari Post, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode – 638 504. Pan: Aabak 3671M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A),Prayagraj In Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-23/1058743474 (1) & 1058743723(1) Both Dated 14.12.2023. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2019-20 Were Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Were Issued By The Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Central Ita Nos.516 &517/Chny/2024 Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru Vide Orders Dated 12.07.2019 & 20.09.2020 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80P

processing of return of income disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act amounting to Rs.27,90,640/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A).. 6.1 The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by observing in paras 6.6 to 6.9 as under:- “6.6 The provisions laid