← 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

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 524/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit 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: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/2018 are delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the appeal in I.T.A. No.254/Chny/2016 is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form ... No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 522/Chny/2018 and also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act in I.T.A

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 523/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit 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: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/2018 are delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the appeal in I.T.A. No.254/Chny/2016 is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form ... No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 522/Chny/2018 and also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act in I.T.A

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 522/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit 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: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/2018 are delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the appeal in I.T.A. No.254/Chny/2016 is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form ... No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 522/Chny/2018 and also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act in I.T.A

M/S Redisolve Software P Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Cor Circle 5 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 521/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit 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: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/2018 are delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the appeal in I.T.A. No.254/Chny/2016 is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form ... No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 522/Chny/2018 and also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act in I.T.A

ITO, Corp Ward -6(4), Chennai vs. Sri Kumaran Wind Energy Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 3373/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3373/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Sri Kumaran Wind Corporate Ward– 6(4), Energy Pvt. Ltd., No. 3, Chennai – 600 034. Manali Express Road, Tkp Nagar, Chennai 600 019. [Pan: Aajcs6450L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate 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 Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To Deletion Of Addition Made Of Interest Payment For ₹.1,46,74,910/- By Admitting Additional Evidence Is In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made of interest payment for ₹.1,46.74,910/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that when the assessment was completed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, without obtaining remand report from

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2698/CHNY/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2697/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2696/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2695/CHNY/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

Gayathri Devi Vyas, D.Srinivas Vyas Manohar Vyas Vijay Shri Legal Heirs of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2693/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2692/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

D.Srinivas Vyas, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 2691/CHNY/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2691 & 2692/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2001-02 & 2002-03 Shri D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 1, D Block, Eashwaran Koil Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Street, West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Abvpv4760G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2693, 2694, 2695, 2696, 2697 & 2698/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:1998-99, 99-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 Gayathri Devi Vyas, D. Srinivas Vyas, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Manohar Vyas, Vijay Shri, Legal Heirs Non Corporate Ward 12(5), Of Late Shri Durga Das Vyas, No. 1, D Chennai. Block, Eashwaran Koil Street, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. [Pan:Adapv2591C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate & Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel for the petitioner on the said provision is acceptable. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending. In such a case, the limitation period for the levy of penalty will be as provided for under

ITO TDS Ward, Tirupur vs. Shanthi Fortune (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2557/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

compute the liability of the assessee under section 194H of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging that the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. The Revenue also filed

Shanthi Fortune (India) Private Limited, Tirupur vs. ACIT TDS Circle, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue and the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2385/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2385/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore. Palladam 641 664. [Pan: Aajcs4289D] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 88/Chny/2019 [In I.T.A. No.2557/Chny/2018] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Shanthi Fortune (India) Tds Ward, No. 121, Private Limited, Sixty Feet Road, Tirupur 641 602. Door No. 38, Trichy Road, Palladam 641 664. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N Arjun Raj, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 25.06.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri N Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153(3)Section 254

compute the liability of the assessee under section 194H of the Act. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging that the order giving effect to the order of the ITAT passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. The Revenue also filed

John Antony, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 22/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 21 & 22/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2011-12 Shri John Antony, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 13 & 15, K.R.G. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aeipj6043G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""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: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Both Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 24.02.2010 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.7,07,980/-. The Case Was Selected For 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment years and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. Since the assessee has opted the VSVS scheme and filed Forms 1 & 2, both the appeals

John Antony, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-2(2), Coimbatore

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

ITA 21/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 21 & 22/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2011-12 Shri John Antony, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 13 & 15, K.R.G. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006. Coimbatore. [Pan:Aeipj6043G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""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: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore, Both Dated 28.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 On 24.02.2010 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.7,07,980/-. The Case Was Selected For 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment years and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years. Since the assessee has opted the VSVS scheme and filed Forms 1 & 2, both the appeals

ACIT, Chennai vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 151/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.151/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Tractors & Farm Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Equipment Ltd., No. 33, Pottipatti New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Plaza, N.H. Road, Chennai 600 034. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaact2761Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate 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 Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai, Dated 28.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The First Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Relating To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Provision For Sales Incentive Expenses Included In The Project Promotion Expenses. In The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Noted That In The Product

For Appellant: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

assessee. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that the liability is a contingent liability and paid in subsequent year and therefore, in the year under ... been made for the balance payment of ₹.9.23 lakhs made to resident commission agent. 7. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival contentions. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted

Redisolve Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit 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: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

appeals filed by the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/2018 are delayed by 4 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Similarly, the appeal in I.T.A. No.254/Chny/2016 is filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form ... No.254/Chny/16 & I.T.A. Nos. 521 to 524/Chny/18 appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 522/Chny/2018 and also challenged the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 of the Act in I.T.A

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbaiq vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

ITA 2449/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 14A

further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 4 ITA NO.2449/MUM/2022