← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

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

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

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.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

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.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

ITO, Ward 62(1), New Delhi vs. Shyam Pal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as above

ITA 1813/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

order passed under section 154 of the Act, which was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. There is delay of 230 days in filing this appeal. There is no delay condonation application, on the record, filed ... material available on the record. The CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 prescribes threshold limit of tax effect of Rs.50 Lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal subject to following exceptions as per para-10 of the Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018: 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should

Techman Buildwell Private Lmited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 737/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

restricting to the Rs. 24,50,000/-, which allegedly was received from Accord Tradefin Private Limited. As For this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, for admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before

Gazal Caterers, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7752/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who sustained the addition to Rs.16,22,085/-. 8. Aggrieved further, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the return of income was filed

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 1618/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

restricting to the Rs. 24,50,000/-, which allegedly was received from Accord Tradefin Private Limited. As For this, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, for admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before

Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(1), Third Floor C Wing, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan Ambawadi Ahmedabad vs. Bharatkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.D.R
Section 68

when the relief was allowed on the basis of the remand report of the Assessing Officer, the revenue was precluded from filling further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submission. It is found from the assessment order that addition ... supra that when the relief was granted based on the remand report of the Assessing Officer, Revenue would be precluded from filing further appeal before the Tribunal. With the consistent emphasis of the CBDT to reduce litigation, it was not proper for the Revenue to file this appeal without pointing

Third Eye Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(15) Now Ward- 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 243(3)Section 263

exigencies in the family. Since the delay has been explained by the assessee, and the reasons given for delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal appears to be genuine, the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that as regards ground no.1 regarding disallowance made

M/S Sarovar Enterprises, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Panvel

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

ITA 811/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2 3. There is a delay of 293 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents

Geriatric Wellness Foundation, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1346/PUN/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godarageriatric Wellness Foundation Cit (Exemption), Pune Lokmanya Hospital, Mitramandal Vs. 484/6, Mitramandal Colony, Parvati, Pune – 411009 Pan : Aafcg8051M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Agiwal Department By : Shri Keyur Patel, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-06-2024 O R D E R Per R. K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 12A

Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby cancelled.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(Exemption), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Vedsidha Products Privat Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 25/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

shares of the company. The addition of ` 1,57,50,000, was therefore, directed to be deleted. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative had vehemently submitted that the first appellate authorities had fallen into a grave error while relying upon the registered

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 163/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 15. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not able to response to some notices of the Ld. AO issued

Neerus Ensembles Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.162 & 163/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2017-18) Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaccn1554D (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M These Two Appeals Filed By Neerus Ensembles Pvt. Ltd. (“Assessee”) Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Both Dated 22/12/2023 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Relating To A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 15. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not able to response to some notices of the Ld. AO issued

Sharma Yegnanarayana Praturi, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 542/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.542/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sharma Yegnnarayana Vs. Income Tax Officer Praturi, Hyderabad (International Pan:Biopp9553A Taxation)2, Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

keeping good health. For that the assessee had filed certain documents to substantiate that there was delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was submitted that there was reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time and the AR requested for condonation of delay ... days i.e. on or before 20.9.2022. Instead, the Page 9 of 11 ITA No 542 of 2023 Sharma Yegnnarayana Praturi assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal only on 6.11.2023. Admittedly, during the period, the assessee has sought to justify for not filing appeal, before the Tribunal, on the basis

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 755/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Kolkata, 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 27.04.2023 (more or less 335 days) 3. That the Assessee engaged the pre planed activity of the Charitable Intuition, so that

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 754/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Kolkata, 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 27.04.2023 (more or less 335 days) 3. That the Assessee engaged the pre planed activity of the Charitable Intuition, so that

Ramakrishna Rao, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Alipurduar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

condonation petition along with an affidavit has been placed on file wherein the assessee has prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal may kindly be condoned and the case be heard on merits. The affidavit sworn by the assessee, which is available in the file, is extracted ... account of delay of 254 days because the reasons assigned were not sufficient for condonation of delay. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Ramakrishna Rao Chintalapudi, AY: 2020-21. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that

M/S. Bengal Tiger Line Private Limited, Chennai vs. Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 94/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

Rs.24,07,386/-. The addition made by the AO is justified and therefore, this ground of appellant is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have perused the case records including the assessment order and the order of CIT(A)-NFAC. We have heard ld.Senior ... Rs.29,96,938/-. The addition made by the AO is justified and therefore, this ground of appellant is dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us filed

Madeit Innovation Foundation, Kancheepuram vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 162/CHNY/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 162/Chny/2024 M/S.Madeit Innovation The Cit(Exemption), Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 3Rd Floor, New Academic Block, Iiitdm, Kancheepuram – 600 127. Pan: Aakcm 5065A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

grievance of the assessee was not resolved till 27th December, 2023 and thereafter, the assessee took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal. We find the cause as reasonable and sufficient and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The only issue in this appeal of assessee

M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited, Egmore, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 507/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. M/S. Coastal Energen Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax No. 5, Buhari Building, Central Circe 1(1) Moores Road, Egmore, Chennai Chennai 600 006. ( Previously The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2) Pan: Aadcc 0886G Chennai.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

same, the grounds in this regard for all the impugned AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed’’. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that assessee admittedly received interest from fixed deposits of Rs.7,43,415/-. But in any case this being assessed

M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited, Egmore, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 506/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. M/S. Coastal Energen Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax No. 5, Buhari Building, Central Circe 1(1) Moores Road, Egmore, Chennai Chennai 600 006. ( Previously The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2) Pan: Aadcc 0886G Chennai.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

same, the grounds in this regard for all the impugned AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed’’. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that assessee admittedly received interest from fixed deposits of Rs.7,43,415/-. But in any case this being assessed

M/S. Coastal Energen Private Limited, Egmore, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 505/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 505, 506 & 507/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years:2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. M/S. Coastal Energen Private The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income Tax No. 5, Buhari Building, Central Circe 1(1) Moores Road, Egmore, Chennai Chennai 600 006. ( Previously The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2) Pan: Aadcc 0886G Chennai.) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Balakrishnan, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan, IRS, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 44A

same, the grounds in this regard for all the impugned AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are dismissed’’. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We noted that assessee admittedly received interest from fixed deposits of Rs.7,43,415/-. But in any case this being assessed