← All Phrases

“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax
116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court
59
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.
1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court
55
citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.
96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT
30
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT
373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court
28
citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engg. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1231/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) , by holding as under:- “5.2 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the observations

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2303/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) , by holding as under:- “5.2 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the observations

The Dy. CIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2302/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) , by holding as under:- “5.2 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the observations

The ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ajay Engineering Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Unjha

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2118/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , which appeal stood allowed by the ld. CIT(A) , by holding as under:- “5.2 I have carefully gone through the facts of the case, the observations

Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 2357/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

80IA being a developer is not rational and genuine and hence withdrawn.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , and the assessee claimed itself to be developer of infrastructure projects rather than being merely as construction contractor. The assessee ... added the same back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the 19 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. assessee. Aggrieved

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2352/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

80IA being a developer is not rational and genuine and hence withdrawn.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , and the assessee claimed itself to be developer of infrastructure projects rather than being merely as construction contractor. The assessee ... added the same back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the 19 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. assessee. Aggrieved

The ACIT.(OSD), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Khurana Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2308/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roya.Y. 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

80IA being a developer is not rational and genuine and hence withdrawn.” 4. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) , and the assessee claimed itself to be developer of infrastructure projects rather than being merely as construction contractor. The assessee ... added the same back to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the 19 CO. No.209/Ahd/2011 AYs:2007-08 CO. No.210/Ahd/2011 & Khurana Engineering Ltd. assessee. Aggrieved

Abdul Azeez Poolakkodan, Kottakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1006/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugarabdul Azeez Poolakkodan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Poolakkodan House Tharif Bazar, Opp. Town Hall Randathani P.O. Vs. Tirur 676101 Malappuram 676510 [Pan: Acppa2490P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

whose opinion there was no mistake in his order; the assessment being in accordance with the provisions of law. The view being reiterated in first appeal by the ld. CIT(A) per the impugned order, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused

Acil Na vs. Ar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbaivs.CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi and AO (Exemption), Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3979/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Us Assessee Has Filed Brief Submissions Which Read As Under:-

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

uploaded. The Assessee was continuously requesting for the same. The request for adjournments cannot be said to be not interested in prosecuting the first appeal. The Assessee was fully pursuing and was interested in prosecuting the first appeal. The Assessee is not served any show cause notice

ACIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Anthem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 215/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Anthem Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 04, 1St Floor, Jagriti Enclave, Circle-2(2), New Delhi. Vikas Marg Extn., New Delhi. Pan: Aaica7355D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.10.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.273/19-20/Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle 2(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records. Ld. Ar Has Relied The Order Of Co- Ordinate Bench In The Case Of Assessee For Ay 2014-15, In Ita No. 5676/Del/2017 To Contend That The Issue Is Covered In Favour Of Assessee By The Order Dated 29/10/2021. Ld. Dr Could Not Dispute This Factual Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145

followed the order in case of assessee for AY 2014-15 where such addition was deleted at the stage of first appeal. The appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed by Co-ordinate bench, by the order dated, 29/10/2021 (supra). We consider it advantageous to reproduce the relevant findings

Kavanoor Srinivasan Sridhar, Chennai vs. ITO Salary Ward VI(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 259/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.259/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Kavanoor Srinivasan Sridhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.15, Madha Nagar Salary Ward Vi (2) Extension, Chennai. Madhanandhapuram, Porur, Chennai 600 116. [Pan: Amfps 0388A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri.K. Meenakshi Sundararm, Itp ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri.K. Meenakshi Sundararm, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)

order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2009 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits and appeal was disposed of ex-parte on the basis of statements of facts filed

Karthik Agencies, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 256/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.256/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Karthik Agencies, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, Karthik Agencies, Ward 1, 3Rd Cross Co-Operative Colony, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri 635001. [Pan: Aagfk 1633F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Tarun, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69

taxed u/s115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority also. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 05. We heard the rival contention and perused

Mubarak, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(3), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 227/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.227/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mubarak, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1/17, Sri Devi Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(3) 1St Street, P.N.T. Colony Road, Coimbatore. Kavundampalayam, Coimbatore 641 030. [Pan: Amfpm 9823J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

taxed u/s115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Upon further appeal, the position remained the same and the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority also. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 05. We have done the rival contention and perused

Kannian Udayaprakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-19(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 206/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.206/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kannian Udayaprakash, Non Corporate Ward 19(1) New No.27, Old No.14, Chennai Balaji Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Abjpu 9946K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcitg सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCITG
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appeal authority. 4. From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) r.w. section ... section 143(3) r.w. section 147 of the Act dated 20.12.2018 was further challenged in appeal wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits and appeal was disposed of ex-parte on the basis of statements of facts filed

M/S. Usha Electric & Refrigeration Company, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 9(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 204/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Usha Electric & Refrigeration Non Corporate Ward 9(5) Company, (Now Non Corporate Ward 9(1) 105, Mount Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 002. [Pan: Aaafu 0193Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)

order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 27.12.2019 before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee did not appear before the first appeallate authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits and appeal was disposed of ex-parte on the basis of statements of facts filed

M/S. Kamarasr Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 170/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.170/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Kamarasar Educational & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Social Welfare Trust, Exemptions Ward, 9-A, D R Complex, Vellala Street, Trichy. Ariyalur 621 704. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aabtk 8393H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 144B

contra, the Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear even before the ld. first appeal authority. 4. From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer held that Assessee is not eligible for exemption under Section

Nagappa Chettiyar Srinivasan, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Ward 1, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 155/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.155/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Nagappa Chettiyar Srinivasan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.71, Kullalar Street, Ward 1, Kaveripattinam, Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri 635 112. [Pan: Bzqps 1696Q]

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69

pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appeal authority. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2019 and made addition ... period treated as unexplained investments under section 69 and taxed u/s115BBE of the Act. Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits against which assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contention

S. A. Kumar, Salem vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 145/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.145/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) S.A. Kumar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Sri Nandhi Traders, Income Tax, No.271, Nandhi Dhall Mills, Circle 1(1) Narasimhan Street, Salem. Salem 636 002. [Pan: Aeepk 3823R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)

other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before the ld. first appeal authority. 4. From the case record, it emerges that Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated ... made addition on account of cash deposits during demonetisation period treated as unexplained money. Upon further appeal, the assessee did not appear before the first appeal authority. Accordingly, the assessment was confirmed on merits on the basis of statements of facts filed by the Assessee against which assessee

Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, Nagpur vs. ACIT Circle, Chandrapur

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 228/NAG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Abay Marathe [Ld. DR’]
Section 10(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

penalty of ₹6,02,858/- @ an accelerated rate of 200% of tax sought to evaded u/s 270A(8) of the Act. 2.4 The first appeal against the aforestated imposition did fail to settle dispute in favour of the assessee, for the reasons the assessee came in present appeal

The Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod, Tiruchirapalli vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 73/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.71/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.72/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of Acit- Cpc Tds The Cross Of Chavanod Ghaziabad बनाम/ Vs. Holy Cross Provinciliate, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli-620 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatt-4867-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (Itp) - Ld .Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshi Sundaram (ITP) - Ld .ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 234E

assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. During hearing, nothing could be shown to us that would explain inordinate delay in filing the first appeals. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue of limitation in a very exhaustive manner in the impugned order. To seek condonation