← 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)

Arya Samaj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 984/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Arya Samaj, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ward - 1, No.804/15, Swamy Shraddhanand Bhavan, Bengaluru. Vishveshvarapuram, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aacta 0479 K Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sudheendra B. R, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra B. R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234F

filed any notes received by it. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) contending that while processing return, the CPC cannot issue intimation under section 143(1) denying benefit of deduction under section

Yennarkay R.Chiranjeevirathinam, Sivakasi vs. ACIT, CC 2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 337/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

answer the same. Further, the Bench enquired that how satisfaction note is important for filing of appeal before Tribunal, when the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) adjudicated by noting the relevant satisfaction note in para 7 as under:- 7. However, the satisfaction recorded for initiating

Yennarkay R Chiranjeevirathnam, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 219/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

answer the same. Further, the Bench enquired that how satisfaction note is important for filing of appeal before Tribunal, when the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) adjudicated by noting the relevant satisfaction note in para 7 as under:- 7. However, the satisfaction recorded for initiating

Yennarkay R Chiranjeevirathnam, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 218/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)(a)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

answer the same. Further, the Bench enquired that how satisfaction note is important for filing of appeal before Tribunal, when the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) adjudicated by noting the relevant satisfaction note in para 7 as under:- 7. However, the satisfaction recorded for initiating

Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax, Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 180/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Arvind Mangilal Jain, Vs. The Ito, No.11, 1St Floor, Chinnu Building, D S Ward – 5(1)(3), Lane, Chickpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 002. Pan : Acopj 3142 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Balram R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-5, Bengaluru, Dated 26.06.2018, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of About 582 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Assessee. It Has Been Stated In The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal That The Assessee Entrusted The Filing Of Appeal Before Cit(A) Against The Order Of Assessment Dated 22.12.2017 To Chartered Accountant (Ca) With Instructions To File The Appeal. The Affidavit Is Silent With Regard To The Date On Which The Papers Were Handed Over To The Ca. It Appears That The Assessee Did Not Contact The Ca Till The Ao Contacted The Assessee In January 2022 For Recovery Of Outstanding Demand & When He Informed That The Assessee That The Assessee’S Appeal Before Cit(A) Has Been Dismissed. Thereafter The Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Balram R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

stated in the affidavit filed by the assessee for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that the assessee entrusted the filing of appeal before CIT(A) against the Order of Assessment dated 22.12.2017 to Chartered Accountant (CA) with instructions to file the appeal. The affidavit is silent with regard ... contacted the assessee in January 2022 for recovery of outstanding demand and when he informed that the Assessee that the Assessee’s appeal before CIT(A) has been dismissed. Thereafter the Page 2 of 3 assessee came to know that his CA filed an appeal before the CIT

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2704/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2703/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year

Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.2 It seems that the AO levied penalty @ 200%. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 7. The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to minimum and accordingly, restricted the penalty of Rs.7.25 crores for assessment year

Dy.CIT Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1767/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143C of the Act on 31.12.2019. 07. Assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before CIT(A), 49, Mumbai who held that the addition is made in the hands of the assessee only on the basis of statement of Shri. Kirit Nagda

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai vs. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1765/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143C of the Act on 31.12.2019. 07. Assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before CIT(A), 49, Mumbai who held that the addition is made in the hands of the assessee only on the basis of statement of Shri. Kirit Nagda

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1764/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143C of the Act on 31.12.2019. 07. Assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before CIT(A), 49, Mumbai who held that the addition is made in the hands of the assessee only on the basis of statement of Shri. Kirit Nagda

M/S. Mukka Protenis Limited, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 433/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

CIT(Appeals), Panaji. The assessee's submission has been perused and it is found that the contention does not have any merit, the appeal before CIT(A) pertain to addition of excess stock of Rs.5,25,11,601/-. The issue of taxation of excess stock of Rs.11 ... under section 69C read with section 115BBE is left unexamined/undecided by the AO, the same is not a subject matter of appeal before CIT(A). Similarly the issue of difference in total income as per P 86 L account and computation sheet is not verified by the AO. In view

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3391/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

noted that the assessee has recognized buffer stock subsidy as revenue item in the earlier previous years on accrual basis. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by stating that the item of income earned by the assessee ... interest cost in the inventories and treated this amount as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) noted that as per Accounting Standard-2 issued by ICAI, the other costs which are incurred in bringing the inventories

M/S. Coromandel Sugars Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3390/CHNY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3390 & 3391/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2013 - 14 Coromandel Sugars Ltd., The Dcit, No.93, Santhome High Road, Vs. Corporate Circle -1(2), R.A. Puram, Chennai. Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaaci 2702G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4(I/C), Chennai In Ita Nos.434 & 433/16-17/Cit(A)-4/Ays 2005-06 & 2013-14 Dated 09.09.2019. The Assessments Were Framed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

noted that the assessee has recognized buffer stock subsidy as revenue item in the earlier previous years on accrual basis. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO by stating that the item of income earned by the assessee ... interest cost in the inventories and treated this amount as income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 8. The CIT(A) noted that as per Accounting Standard-2 issued by ICAI, the other costs which are incurred in bringing the inventories

Sabesan Parameswaran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 2060/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2060/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 16 Dr. Sabesan Parameswaran, The Acit, New No.6, Old No.30, Vs. Non-Corporate Circle-2, Second Street, East Chennai Abhiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Amipp 9152G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Venkatachalam, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

taking assessee’s share of 2/3rd at Rs.4,92,63,696/- computed the total income. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee being legal owner of the property and the agent or the PoA holder Shir S. Ramaswamy was never a legal

Diastar Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 8(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5313/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

Mills Pvt. Ltd. 30,00,000 - Rawmet Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 15,00,000 72,50,000 3.4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before CIT(A) challenging, both, the transfer pricing addition of INR.1,79,98,287/- and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section

Vinay Todi, Kolkata vs. DCIT Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 664/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Todi V. Dcit – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 Pan: Adapt6426A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

explanation offered by the assessee are not satisfactory, hence added u/s 68 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) -47, Mumbai and submitted a detailed note, for the sake of convenience, it is reproduced below: - “The Appellant is an individual, filing his return

Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Cuddalore vs. ACIT, Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 739/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry [CIT(A)] dated 27-02-2020 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143 ... given by revisional authority to withdraw the claim made u/s 36(1)(viia) and therefore, such directions could not be subject matter of appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) cannot sit over the judgment over the correctness of specific direction given in order u/s 263. Therefore, the ground

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kamarajar Port Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Ennore Port Ltd.), Chennai

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

ITA 2450/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2450/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, Kamarajar Port Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(2), Vs. (Formerly Known As Ennore Port Chennai – 34. Ltd.,) 4Th Floor, Super Speciality Diabetic Centre (Erstwhile Dlb Building), Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001. Pan: Aaace 9013G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.30/Cit(A)-6/2016-17 Dated 18.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 21.03.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against Eh Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Revenue Has Raised Four Grounds Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative & Hence, We Will Not Reproduce The Same.

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14A

expenses @ 0.5% of average value of investments at Rs.21,87,500/-. The aggregate disallowance comes to Rs.1,58,29,560/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) simpliciter following earlier years decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2012-13 in ITA No.2205/Mds/2015 dated