← 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

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

hereby dismissed and the addition made u/s.68 of Rs.1,98,00,000/- are sustained. Aggrieved, in both the years, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the paper-book filed ... same to short term capital gains. The CIT(A) exactly on identical facts dismissed the claim of assessee. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the years. 8. Before us the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of sale deeds executed in regard to these agricultural

Kathiravan Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruchirapalli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 170/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

hereby dismissed and the addition made u/s.68 of Rs.1,98,00,000/- are sustained. Aggrieved, in both the years, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the paper-book filed ... same to short term capital gains. The CIT(A) exactly on identical facts dismissed the claim of assessee. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the years. 8. Before us the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copy of sale deeds executed in regard to these agricultural

Smt. Sabapathy Kalaiselvi, Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

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

ITA 619/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in this regard before passing the fresh assessment order.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order framed and it is limited scrutiny assessment just

Citizen Educational Trust, Salem vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

assessee in the ITR filed by it. In view of the same, all the Grounds of appeal are dismissed.” Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri S. Sridhar stated that the assessee has no registration u/s.12AA

M/S. Aspire Systems India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Adl. CIT, Company Range-1, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that with regard to the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, similar issue was subject ... matter in appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10 and the Tribunal in its order in I.T.A. No. 1407/Mds/2013 dated 25.02.2015 remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the entire facts of the case and pass orders in accordance with

JCIT (OSD), Corporate Circle - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 762/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that with regard to the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, similar issue was subject ... matter in appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10 and the Tribunal in its order in I.T.A. No. 1407/Mds/2013 dated 25.02.2015 remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the entire facts of the case and pass orders in accordance with

DCIT, Chennai vs. Aspire Systems (India) P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2000/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2000/Chny/2019 & 762/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2011-12 The Deputy/Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Aspire Systems India Income Tax, Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. 7, Corporate Circle 1(1), Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aacca4543M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 785/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Aspire Systems India Vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Private Limited, Old. No. 4, New No. Income Tax, 7, Ii Trust Link Road, Mandaveli, Company Range-1, Chennai 600 028. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Department By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit Assessee By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well Are Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 14ASection 40

section 14A of the Act. 5. Against the appellate orders for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12, the Department preferred further appeals before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that with regard to the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, similar issue was subject ... matter in appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10 and the Tribunal in its order in I.T.A. No. 1407/Mds/2013 dated 25.02.2015 remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the entire facts of the case and pass orders in accordance with

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

Assessing Officer for A.Y 2011-12, in the case of the assessee, needs to be withdrawn.” 8 Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee, first of all, raised issue of assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT for invoking provisions

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2337/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

adopted. The assessee’s appeal was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the years for which the Revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The crux of the disallowance was that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that each flat in the said project was below

ITO-17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2336/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

adopted. The assessee’s appeal was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the years for which the Revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The crux of the disallowance was that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that each flat in the said project was below

ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Poddar Ashish Developrs, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2335/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. N. RaoFor Respondent: 08.12.2022
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

adopted. The assessee’s appeal was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) for both the years for which the Revenue was in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The crux of the disallowance was that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that each flat in the said project was below

Babita Devi Kanoria, Raniganj vs. I.T.O., Ward-3(1), Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 54/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria,..............................Appellant W/O. Unesh Kr. Kajoria, Jagannath Garden, Nsb Road, P.O. Raniganj-713347, Burdwan, West Bengal [Pan: Anfpk0759G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,..............................Respondent Ward-3(1), Asansol, Income Tax Department, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road, Upper Chelidanga, P.O. Asansol-713305, Paschim Burdwan (Wb) Appearances By: Shri Aayush Gupta, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz):- The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol Dated 18.11.2019 Passed For A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Babita Devi Kajoria, Raniganj 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, But Her Grievances Revolve Around A Single Issue, Namely Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.3,09,766/-, Which Was Imposed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C).

Section 133(6)Section 14Section 144Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Date of pronouncing the order : December 22, 2022 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol dated 18.11.2019 passed for A.Y. 2010-11. 1 Assessment Year

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Now before us, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that once the same was disallowed by the AO and confirmed ... also confirmed the action of the AO by treating the expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted the arguments of ld.AR that the assessee

Salim Ibrahimbai Jaka, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cnetral Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5147/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Salim Ibrahimbhai Jaka, Dy. Cit Central Circle- 2Nd Floor, Malhotra House, 3(3), Office No. 1 Opp. Gpo Fort, Vs. Room No. 1923, 19Th Mumbai-400 001. Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Abppj 5700 N Appellant Respondent : Assessee By None : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 01/11/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by None
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment as well as addition on challenging validity of the assessment as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Prasad Sp Entertainment LLP, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 261/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Prasads Sp Entertainment Vs. Acit,Cc-1(2) Llp Aaykar Bhawan 8-2-293/82/Jiii/6 Basher Bagh Ramanaidu Studios Hyderabad Road No.79, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 033

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas,CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

adjudication. To sum up the appeal is partly allowed. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds 1.The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.The Appellate Commissioner

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 765/CHNY/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N Arjunraj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

satisfied, condonation of delay is not available to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds 5, 6 and 8 are dismissed.” Aggrieved assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstance of the case. We noted that the assessee

Sri Paraswanath Digambar Jain Bhavan Management Trust, Villupuram vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 575/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.575/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sri Parswanath Digambar Jain Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Bhavan Management Trust, Income Tax/Ito, No. 22, Subramana Swami Koil St., Ward 2, Tindivanam, Villupuram 604 001. Villupuram. [Pan:Aamts2577A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 10.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit, To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 154Section 24

days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was not filed. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for an opportunity to the assessee to file petition for condonation of delay before

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

Appeal against this order was to be filed before the Tribunal on 23.06.2021 as against the last date for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal is 25.05.2021. Thereby, there is a delay of 29 days. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated the period falling under delay is covered

Sekar Jayalakshmi, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-22(2), West Tambaram

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

ITA 20/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.20/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Doshi – Nakshatra-1, Old Sbi Colony, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Near Rto, 2E Swathi Block, West Tambaram. Tambaram, Tamil Nadu 600 045. [Pan:Awipj1285G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 12.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 248 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Rangamani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

confirmed the addition. 3 I.T.A. No. 20/Chny/21 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in adding ₹.6,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act without considering

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

disallowance amounting to Rs 2,37,08,703 on claim u/s 80IA stands upheld.” 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that though the assessee has not submitted Form 10CCB along with return of income