“condonation of delay”

AppealsSection 249Section 24912,312 judgments

The decision most relied on for condonation of delay is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on condonation of delay

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji

167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court

3,926

citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

2 SCC 107 · 1987 · Supreme Court

451

citing judgments

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy

7 SCC 123 · 1998 · Supreme Court

368

citing judgments

The Supreme Court outlines the principles for condoning delay in filing appeals, stating that a litigant's lapse is not always a bar if the explanation is bona fide and not a dilatory strategy. Courts should show utmost consideration to suitors and prioritize substantial justice unless the delay is deliberately to gain time.

Vishin Meghani v. DCIT & Anr

398 ITR 250 · 2017 · High Court

291

citing judgments

This case is cited as an authority supporting the condonation of delay in filing income tax appeals, particularly when an assessee presents a request for such condonation.

Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

118 ITR 507 · 1979 · Supreme Court

268

citing judgments

For condoning delay, the term 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted liberally and purposively to advance justice. Delay not tainted by mala fides, gross negligence, or recklessness, and based on honestly obtained legal advice, constitutes sufficient cause.

Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · Supreme Court

267

citing judgments

Non-deliberate procedural delays caused by circumstances beyond control must be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, even if the delay is significant, such as over 1500 days.

Vedabhai v. Santaram

253 ITR 798 · 2002 · Supreme Court

262

citing judgments

When substantial justice and technical considerations are in conflict, substantial justice should be prioritized. Condoning delay requires a cautious approach without malafide or dilatory tactics, and 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice.

Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT

280 ITR 357 · 2006 · High Court

182

citing judgments

The expression "sufficient cause" for condoning delay in filing appeals must receive a liberal and purposive construction. This approach aims to advance substantial justice, which is of paramount importance.

Judgments citing condonation of delay

Bhagwan Shree Shankeshwar Parshawanath Jain Derasar Trust, Thane vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO, Nfass.C, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwan Shree Shankeshwar Parshavanath Jain Derasar Trust Ground Floor, Ratnadeep Building C.H.S. Ltd. 60 Feet Road, Bhayandar (W), Thane, Maharashtra-401 101 Pan: Aabtb1564D ...... Appellant Vs. Acit/Jcit/Dcit/Ito/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

case of the assessee was neither attended by any of its authorized representatives nor any written submission along with an application for condonation of delay filed. This is 3rd time the matter was fixed before the bench, but none appeared. In these circumstances, as technically also matter is not eligible ... bench, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee, with the liberty that the assessee can file an M.A. along with an application for condonation of delay. Because of the above grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced

M/S. N. K. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 872/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 144

after reaching the station, there was a delay on one delay in filing the above appeal. Ld. Sr. D.R. has no objection in condoning the delay. Thus we are satisfied with the reasons stated in the Affidavit and we hereby condone the delay of one day in filing the above ... days before Ld. CIT(A) which was refused to be condoned as the assessee failed to explain the delay with necessary ‘condonation of delay’ petition. Operative portion of the order reads as follows: “….2. As can be seen, there is delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal. However

Sanil Sethu Madhavan, Pune vs. CIT A, Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

ITA 1051/PUN/2023[18-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1051/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanil Sethu Madhavan 56/4/1, Kondhwa Khurd Lane-12, Nr Ravi Apts, Pune-411048 Pan : Aucpm6579Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) Dt. 31/07/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(1)(a)

there is unsubstantial delay in instituting the appeal before the Ld. NFAC. This appeal admittedly was filed without accompanying therewith a petition for condonation of delay stating therein the circumstance due to which said delay was caused. Faced with the situation, the Ld. NFAC rejected to ITAT-Pune Page

Kmb Estates LLP, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore - 1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

issues and his son was also hospitalized. Upon receipt of demand notice, the impugned order came to notice and appeal was filed. Therefore condonation of delay is requested. 3. After hearing both the parties, we note that that there are sufficient reasons for the delay and following the judgment

S 279 Kottathupatti Pacs Limited, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1631/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)

rival contention and perused the material on 5. record. I noticed that assessee filed petition u/s.119 (2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing of return of income filed belatedly just by eleven days and the condonation petition is pending with CBDT. As condonation petition is pending

Babu Velu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp. Cricle 9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1583/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Anandd Babunath, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

appeal has to be filed on or before 19.12.2023 but was filed only on 27.12.2023. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the following reasons:- ‘’5. That, I am being issued a letter by Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1) Chennai asking ... file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Chennai’’. When this was confronted to ld. Senior Departmental Representative, he has not objected for condonation of delay. Hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual engaged

Presidency Kid Leather Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1524/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1524/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee pursued alternate remedy in the form of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Thus, the ld. counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and to admit the claim of deduction of ₹.6,99,22,700/- being the preliminary/pre-operative expense written ... moved a petition under section 154 of the Act dated 08.02.2017 before the Assessing Officer. This fact was mentioned in its petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that “how can the assessee hope to extend

Shamlal Company India Private Limited, Salem vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1). Salem, Salem

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

ITA 1508/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. T.S.Lakshmi VenkatramanFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(3)

appeal has to be filed on or before 13.11.2023 but was filed only on 18.12.2023. The assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay stating the following reasons: ‘’4) The delay of 35 days in filing the above appeal happened because of the following reasons: a) My father Mr.Desraj Bajaj ... days in filing the appeal is neither willful nor wanton’’. When these facts were confronted to ld. Senior Departmental Representative, he objected for condoning the delay. I find the cause as reasonable and hence, condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee took

Asha Modern Educational Society, Saharanpur vs. ITO Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1371/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

very same Audit Report as 29/09/2017. After coming to know about not uploading the Audit Report, the Assessee filed a letter for condonation of delay uploading the Form 10B along with certificate from auditors explaining the reason for delay and hard copy of Form No. 10B was sent through registered

Hitendra Dilipsinh Jadeja, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 66/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Hitendra Dilipsinh Jadeja The Ito 4, Sanjay Park Society Vs Ward-3(2)(2) Nr.Jogni Mata Temple Ahmedabad Sanand Ahmedabad – 382 110 Gujarat Pan: Agfpj1666A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19/10/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

timely filing of the appeal by the original AR and accordingly the appeal was again filed by the new AR requesting for condonation of delay. Both the appeals are very much reflected on the Portal of the Hon'ble CIT(A). However, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has not taken ... consideration the appeal filed by the original AR and taken into account only the subsequent appeal filed by the new AR including for condonation of delay and the Hon'ble CIT (A) has stated that there was a delay in filing the appeal and therefore he has rejected

Mohamad Yusuf Abdulla Karbhari, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 524/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Mohamad Yusuf Abdulla The Income Tax Officer Karbhari Vs Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara 6, Bina Nagar Society Vasna Road, Vadodara Pan: Abdpk 9291 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14/08/2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of Your Appellant, The Ld.A.O. Has Erred In Treating The Receipts Of Rs.24,58,760/- As Unexplained Cash Credit. Therefore, You Appellant Prays Your Goodself To Delete The Addition Made By The Ld.A.O. Of Rs.24,58,760/- & Request Your Goodself To Hold So. 3. Return Of Income Was Filed On 30/09/2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,06,520/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Subsequently Notice Mohamad Yusuf Abdulla Karbhari Vs. Ito Asst.Year 2012-13 2

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Rajdeep singh, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

There is a delay of three days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has not given any explanation for condonation of delay. In light of this and the observation on merit, we dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

ITA 139/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Page No 3 Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane vs. ITO appear, therefore Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals by not condoning the delay of 79 days in filing the appeals. Because of the non- communication by the former Tax Consultant, the assessee filed the quantum appeals before the Tribunal with a delay ... present Counsel to handle the above quantum appeals along with the penalty appeals. Thus the assessee expressed the genuine hardship and prayed to condone the delay and with direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose the appeals on merits of the case. 4. Per contra Ld. CIT-DR Shri

Ravindrabhai Lakshmanrav Mane, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee in IT[SS]A Nos

ITA 138/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cer-1, Kolkata.

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

ITA 1274/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 1274/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central-1, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -A N D- I.T.A. Nos. 1232/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd.,.......................Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan: Aaacv9131E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

Central -1, Kolkata….Respondent 2 ITA Nos. 1274 & 1232/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd. In the matter of: An application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the 263 order of the Ld. PCIT, dated 28.03.2022 for A.Y: 2012-13. 1. That ... could also be challenged. Due to this misunderstanding, the appeal was not filed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condonation of delay and adjudication of the appeal on merit. 4. Ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, contended that this appeal is time barred by more than

Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1232/KOL/2023[AAACV9131E]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

Amal Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Anindya Kumar Bandopadhyay, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50C(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

dated 16.12.2017 for AY 2015-16. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The appellant pray to condone the delay of 648 days (approx.) in filing this appeal. The delay was without any malafide intention and caused due to circumstance beyond control of the appellant. The admission ... under valuation of property to evade tax” 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 687 days for which petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence is placed on record. The impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) is dated 28.10.2021, accordingly

Radhakrishna Akshar Vikas Nyas, Vidisha vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 11Section 115BSection 68

There is a delay of 131 days in filing the present appeal the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay. 3. We have heard ld. Sr. Counsel of the assessee as well as Ld. DR on the contention of delay and careful perused the reasons ITANo.398/Ind/2022 Radhakrishna Akshar

Mahadevan Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp. Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1570/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569 & 1570/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Late Shri Mahadevan Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ramakrishnan, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Malini Corporate Circle 6(2), Ramakrishnan, Chennai. 46, Rukmani Salai, Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 090. [Pan: Aaapr 8240D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश/ O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 64

these 5 appeals, the CIT(A) dismissed these appeals ex-parte without allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard and also not condoning the delay. The ld.counsel for the assessee narrated the delay as under:- Assessment year No. of days delay ... take the facts and grounds from ITA No.1566/CHNY/2023 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised before CIT(A) as regards to condonation of delay reads as under:- "1) CPC Intimation under section 143(1) dated 28/07/2014 for the ITA Nos.1566 to 1570/Chny/2023 AY 2013-14 was received

Mahadevan Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 64

Mahadevan Ramakrishnan, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1568/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 64