← 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

Gnana Shale Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru

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

ITA 887/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Susan D George, CIT –DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 63

filed a condonation petition as well as an Affidavit of CEO of the assessee, stating the reasons for belated filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is stated in the condonation petition 2 M/sGnana Shale Souhardha Co-operative Limited. that the assessee came to the knowledge of the impugned ... prayed that the Tribunal may take a lenient and compassionate view and delay of 115 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal may be condoned. It was also prayed that the assessee would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury whereas no hardship or injury would be caused

Terroir India Wineries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 2365/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 71

dismissed the same on the premise that the assessee’s appeal has become infructuous- - Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2351/MUM/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by partly allowing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 5 Jal Ratan Deep Co-op Hsg Society Ltd 4. Notices for appearance of the assessee society in these ... February, 1987 1987 AIR 1353 to advance the cause of justice, delay of 2 to 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned as assessee society being not having regular tax adviser and some unavoidable circumstance which is a sufficient cause. 6. We have heard

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by partly allowing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 5 Jal Ratan Deep Co-op Hsg Society Ltd 4. Notices for appearance of the assessee society in these ... February, 1987 1987 AIR 1353 to advance the cause of justice, delay of 2 to 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned as assessee society being not having regular tax adviser and some unavoidable circumstance which is a sufficient cause. 6. We have heard

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2349/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by partly allowing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 5 Jal Ratan Deep Co-op Hsg Society Ltd 4. Notices for appearance of the assessee society in these ... February, 1987 1987 AIR 1353 to advance the cause of justice, delay of 2 to 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned as assessee society being not having regular tax adviser and some unavoidable circumstance which is a sufficient cause. 6. We have heard

M/S Jal Ratan Deep Co-Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2348/MUM/2022[201-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh ()

Section 1Section 115JSection 143Section 250Section 80Section 80P(2)(d)

confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer by partly allowing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeals. 5 Jal Ratan Deep Co-op Hsg Society Ltd 4. Notices for appearance of the assessee society in these ... February, 1987 1987 AIR 1353 to advance the cause of justice, delay of 2 to 10 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal is hereby condoned as assessee society being not having regular tax adviser and some unavoidable circumstance which is a sufficient cause. 6. We have heard

M/S. Swathi Traders, Tirupur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Tirupur

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

ITA 738/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 738/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014 - 15 M/S. Swati Traders, The Acit, 6/8, College Road, Vs. Circle -2, 1St First Cross, Tirupur. Tirupur – 641 602. Pan: Abvfs 9743E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Coimbatore-3 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Coimbatore-3/10448/2016-17 Dated 28.07.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Circle-2, Tirupur For The Assessment Year 2014-15 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 27.12.2016. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Now Argued Before Us Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By The Ao Being Difference In Valuation Of Closing Stock Of Gold Ornaments At Rs.6,53,24,552/-. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Running Into 13 Numbers But All Those Are Argumentative, Exhaustive & Hence, Need Not Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 145A

more or less adopted the same rate and reasoning and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the ld.AR for the assessee challenged the very adoption

DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai vs. Kamarajar Port Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Ennore Port Ltd.), Chennai

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

ITA 2450/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 2450/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 14 The Dcit, Kamarajar Port Ltd., Corporate Circle – 4(2), Vs. (Formerly Known As Ennore Port Chennai – 34. Ltd.,) 4Th Floor, Super Speciality Diabetic Centre (Erstwhile Dlb Building), Rajaji Salai, Chennai -600 001. Pan: Aaace 9013G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.30/Cit(A)-6/2016-17 Dated 18.06.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 21.03.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against Eh Order Of Cit(A) Deleting The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempt Income Made By Ao By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter The ‘Rules’). For This, Revenue Has Raised Four Grounds Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative & Hence, We Will Not Reproduce The Same.

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sudharshan, A.C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14A

dated 23.03.2016, deleted the disallowance only on the issue of investments made by sister concerns for strategic business reasons. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri R. Sudarsan, A.C.A requested for adjournment for the reason that

DCIT 27(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gopuram Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenues dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43C

amount of ₹ 20, 08, 500/-against addition 3 ITA 1587/Mum/2022 made under section 43CA of the Act. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused

Mr. Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 25(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.302/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Mangesh Acit- 25(2) Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan,Bkc, Tukaram Sawant Bandra(E),Mumbai A/004,Prathamesh बिधम/ Maharashtra, 400051 Horizon, New Mhb Vs. Colony, Linking Road, Borivali(W), Mumbai 400091 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aagps0518M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 144

before us. Though, the Assessee has neither made compliance before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT (Appeals) nor even filed the second appeal before the Tribunal in time. However, looking to the reasons given for condonation of delay, there appears to be sufficient cause not representing the matter

M/S. Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 886/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, JCIT -DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 263

basis and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR submitted that five hearing notices were issued by the CIT(A) and out of the five hearing notices

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga vs. M/S. Manasa Medicals, Shivamogga

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 148ASection 68

Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are hereby allowed.” 9. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Page 6 of 9 10. The ld. DR submitted that though the assessee belongs to the exempted category of entities who can accept

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 405/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

after making verification and enquiry into the unexplained cash investments made by the assessee during the FY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT. 6. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals as follows:- “1. The learned Principle

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 404/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

after making verification and enquiry into the unexplained cash investments made by the assessee during the FY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT. 6. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals as follows:- “1. The learned Principle

Dilip Kothari, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 403/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

after making verification and enquiry into the unexplained cash investments made by the assessee during the FY 2013-14. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the PCIT. 6. The assessee has raised common grounds in all these appeals as follows:- “1. The learned Principle

Sudharsan Logistics Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 809/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.809/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Sudharsan Logistics Private Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 24 & 25, S T Tower, Parrys, Income Tax, Chennai 600 001. Non Corporate Circle 18, Chennai. [Pan:Aaacs8428K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 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 25.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Three Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition In The Form Of An Affidavit To Condone The Delay. Since The 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14A

relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by three days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition in the form of an affidavit to condone the delay. Since the 2 I.T.A. No.809/Chny/22 assessee ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing reconciliation statement of books of accounts with Form 26AS, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee could not appear and furnish the details

M/S Perfect Stone Limited, Chennai vs. ITO NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 785/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.785/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Perfect Stone Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 7, Lvr Centre, Seshadri Income Tax, National Faceless Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 006. Assessment Centre, New Delhi. [Pan:Aaacp1931G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 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 30.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Was Passed Under Section 143(43) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] On 23.12.2018. Since The Audit

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, Advocate for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(43)Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there was delay of 51 days in filing the tax audit report

Sanakan Purushothaman, Alappuzha vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1[2], Chennai

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

ITA 383/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.383/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sankaran Purushothaman, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Chingumtharayil, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Thirumalabhagom P.O., Investigation Building, Mahatma Gandhi Cherthala, Alappuzha 688 540, Salai, Nungambakkam, Kerala. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Adqpp2623R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 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) 18, Chennai Dated 22.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted On 19.04.2017 In The Case Of Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company Private Limited, Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Chit Fund. During The Course Of Search Operation, Certain Books Of Account Were 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Suresh Kumar Varma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 272

r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 27.12.2019. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. On appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is aged about 77 years, residing at Alapuzha, Kerala and not able

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 569/CHNY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.568 & 569/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam,, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 250

Assessing Officer. We find that the request made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is genuine. Similar issue was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “7. The first

Regan Powertech Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.568 & 569/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S. Regen Powertech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Sivanandam,, No. 1, Pulla Avenue, Income Tax, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 600 030. Corporate Circle 5(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aadcr5531M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 250

Assessing Officer. We find that the request made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is genuine. Similar issue was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein, the Tribunal has observed and held as under: “7. The first