← 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

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133A

appeal, before the learned CIT(A), the addition so made was directed to be deleted. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. If the observations made in the assessment order leading to the addition and the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order, if kept in juxtaposition

M/S. Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Kumar, R S V S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 80I

addition towards the same. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the disallowances/additions. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A). 5. The ld AR furnished a detailed written submission which is taken on record in page

Kontoor Brands India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.214/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Kontoor Brands India Private The Assistant Commissioner Limited, (Formerly Known As Vf Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1) V. Bangalore. Brands India Private Limited) Awfis, 1St Floor, Shabari Complex Field Marshal Cariappa Road Ashok Nagar, Bangalore North Richmond Town S.O. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccv2727L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Nageswar Rao, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu , Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer On 02.02.2022 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The I.T.Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As 34 Grounds, But During The Course Of Hearing, The Learned Ar Confined His Argument Only To Ground No.1, Challenging The Legal Issue, Which Is As Under:-

For Appellant: Sri.Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 13Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

income of Rs.102,52,39,241. 5. Aggrieved by the final assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR at the very outset, submitted that the final assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

Dr Axion India Private Limited, Thiruvallur vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 301/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.301/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dr Axion India Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 7, Othappai Village, Uthukottai, Income Tax, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 602 023. Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaccd5071D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2022 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), New Delhi Dated 04.04.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.9,90,18,014/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete

For Appellant: Dr. Abishek Murali, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 41Section 43B

brought to tax. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing Annexure to Clause 20(b) of Form 3CD, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company has remitted the payment

Michael Page International Pte Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Tax) -3(2)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 751/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) Michael Page International Pte Limited, C/O.Michael Page International Recruitment Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, 2North Avenue, Maker Maxity, Bandra Kurla Compelx, Mumbai -400 051 Pan:Aahcm-6965-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle – 3(2)(2) Mumbai, Room No.X. 16Th Floor, Air India Bldg., Nariman Point,Mumbai – 400 021 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi Maru ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 23/02/2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Assessment Order By Raising Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah & Ms.Riddhi MaruFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 9(1)(vii)

addition in respect of fee for business support services was made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.144/Mum/2021. The Tribunal vide order dated 04/07/2022 deleted the addition. The facts in the impugned assessment year are identical. The DRP directions ... services as per section 9(1)(vii) (c) r.w.s. Article 12(4) of the India – Singapore DTAA. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.144/Mum/2021 (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench after examining the facts of the case, provisions of the Act and the DTAA

M/S. Warner Bros.Distributing Inc., Mumbai vs. ACIT (Intl Tax)-4(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed pro-tanto

ITA 1721/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvkvkla- 1721@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2019&20½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Applicant Warner Bros. Distributing Inc. C/Of The Act Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. 407, 4Th Floor, Windfall, Sahar Plaza Complex, Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar Andheri East, Mumbai-400 059 Pan No. Aaacw6559R Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Room No.1611, 16Th Floor, Air India Building Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash-Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 5(2)

Warner Bros. Pictures India Pvt. Ltd as taxable in India. The assessee in all the aforesaid assessment years carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal, The Tribunal following the decision rendered in assessment year 2006-07 granted relief to the assessee holding that the assessee

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd vs. The Dy CIT 1(1)

ITA 1039/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

under section 80HH and 80I was allowed @ 20%. In appeal the CIT(A) allowed part relief aggrieved by which, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9.2 After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Assessment Year

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 40A(2)

Again the above orders, [u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C r.w.s 154] the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. IT(TP)A No.150/B/2017 & 320/B/2019 Page 20 of 110 4. The assessee has filed written synopsis which is as under:- Transfer Pricing Grounds : Ground No.4a- Rejection of Hindustan Motors

M/S Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 861/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan:Aaics7671L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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), New Delhi, Dated 26.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 24.11.2015 Admitting Total Loss At ₹.123,55,22,939/-. Subsequently, The Return Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has challenged the ex-parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the presumption that the assessee

Sasikumari, Chennai vs. ITO, Business Ward - IV (3), Chennai

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

ITA 705/CHNY/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.705/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ms.Sasikumari, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.5, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Business Ward-Iv (3), Krishna Nagar, Pammal, Chennai. Chennai-600 075. [Pan: Aaips 1829 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.Lakshmi Pichaimani, CAFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)

income and tax liability accordingly. 3. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 90 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, necessary petition along with affidavit explaining reasons, has been filed. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee referring to petition filed

Mr.N. Venkatesh, Namakkal vs. ITO, Inttaxn Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 449/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.449/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri N. Venkatesh, Vs. The Income Tax, 5/14, Singilipatty, L. Kanavaipatty, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Namakkal 637 002, Chennai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Adupv3691F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 16, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 31.05.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.1,95,490/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

gave relief to the extent of ₹.3,00,000/-. 3 I.T.A. No.449/Chny/22 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a written submission enclosing cash account of the assessee, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that as directed by the Bench

Natarajan Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 is delayed by 788 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, out of which 725 days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay 2 I.T.A. Nos.152 & 153/Chny/22 before Covid ... period. Similarly, the appeal filed by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 152/Chny/2022 is delayed by 1032 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, out of which 969 days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay before Covid-19 period. The assessee has filed petitions

Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-5(3), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 152 & 153/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Nataraja Pillai Padmanabhan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Jai Balaji Nagar, Corporate Ward 5(3), Thirumalai Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 078. [Pan:Albpp8266H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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, Chennai, Dated 06.12.2018 & Dated 13.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 Is Delayed By 788 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Out Of Which 725 Days Are Coming Under Covid-19 Pandemic Period & 63 Days Delay

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 153/Chny/2022 is delayed by 788 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, out of which 725 days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay 2 I.T.A. Nos.152 & 153/Chny/22 before Covid ... period. Similarly, the appeal filed by the assessee in I.T.A. No. 152/Chny/2022 is delayed by 1032 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, out of which 969 days are coming under Covid-19 pandemic period and 63 days delay before Covid-19 period. The assessee has filed petitions

R. Yuvaraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-22(5), Chennai

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

ITA 114/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 114/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri R. Yuvaraj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 1/227, Old No. 1/206, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Bajanai Koil Street, Medavakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 100. [Pan:Ahbpy9547N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate & Shri B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 10, Chennai Dated 05.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 639 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit Explaining The Delay Was Due To 2

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 639 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed condonation petition in the form of an affidavit explaining the delay was due to 2 I.T.A. No.114/Chny/22 outbreak of COVID ... appeal, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has sold the vacant land measuring 1 acre 18 cents (51401 sq. Ft.) situated

Shri Panmull Ashok Kukar Dugar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc - 9 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 556/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.556/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Panmull Ashok Kumar Dugar, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.11, Clemens Road, Of Income Tax, Vepery, Chennai-7. Non-Corporate Circle-9(1) Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8081 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 143 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, a petition along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, has been filed. The :: 2 :: Ld.Counsel

Ms. Ashok Kumar Indira Dugar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 9 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 555/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.555/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Ashok Kumar Indira Dugar, V. The Income Tax Officer, No.11, Clemens Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(2), Vepery, Chennai-7. Chennai. [Pan: Aadpd 8082 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.D. Anand, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr.R.Bhoopathi, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 164 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, a petition along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay in filing of the appeal, has been filed. The :: 2 :: Ld.Counsel

Sikkanthar Shah Jahan, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-12(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 483/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.483/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 Shri Sikkanthar Shah Jahan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 14, Iv Line, Sr Towers, North Non-Corporate Ward 12(1), Beach Road, Chennai 600 001. Chennai [Pan:Aazps2263A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 13, Chennai Dated 03.08.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Time Barred By 511 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein, Following Submissions Were Made: “3. I Humbly State Before The Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, That The Filing Of Appeal Before The Honourable Income Tax Appellate

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 511 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, wherein, following submissions were made: “3. I humbly state before ... confirmed the addition of ₹.50,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By replying upon the grounds of appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded

Integrated Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 910/CHNY/2019[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 910/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1999-2000 M/S. Integrated Finance Company Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, R-10, Ii Floor, Prem Nagar Income Tax, Colony, South Boag Road, T. Nagar, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 017. Chennai. [Pan:Aaaci0876M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 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) 9, Chennai, Dated 20.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 1999-2000. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 281 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. By Way Of Filing An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Prayed For Condoning The Delay & Admitting The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 391

relevant to the assessment year 1999-2000. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 281 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By way of filing an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for condoning ... notice of our Counsel the Miscellaneous Petition order dated 20.4.2018 and they advised us that we have to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 143(3). 5. I state that the Assessee Company is under Provisional Liquidation under the direct

Mrs. Akila Ramesh, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 16(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2378/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2378/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Akila Ramesh Income Tax Officer, No.1, Balaji Street, V. Non Corporate Ward -16(1), Kodambakkam, Chennai- 34. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Ahgpa-4112-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Jayakumar, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri. S. Jayakumar, Advocate
Section 2(14)

2378/Chny/2019 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 313 days in presenting the appeal before the Tribunal, for which a petition along with affidavit explaining reasons for delay has been filed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to petition filed by the assessee submitted ... that the delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal is neither intentional nor to derive any undue benefit, but beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the reasons for delay in filing of appeal is on account of obtaining necessary documents

Dhanroop Betala and Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1442/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1442/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Dhanroop Betala & Sons (Huf), The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. L-107, Oswal Garden, Vs. Income Tax – 9, No. 210-212, C.B. Road, Korrukpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Aachd0325D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. When the appeal was finally taken up for hearing on 21.11.2022, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or any adjournment petition filed