“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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Shri Mohammed Dawood Sultan Abdul Kadar, Chennai

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

ITA 25/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.25/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mohamed Dawood Sultan Abdul Income Tax, Circle 2, Kader, Kolikalpalayam, Thiruvarur, Trichy. Tamil Nadu 610 001. [Pan:Brdps5653L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sankaralingam, Cit (Retd.) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 23.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Land Acquisition Compensation Under Compulsory Acquisition By The Government Is Exempt Or Not.

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sankaralingam, CIT (Retd.)

long term capital gains. 4. Against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in 3 I.T.A. No. 25/Chny/21 appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR strongly relied upon the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee

ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai vs. Smt. Meena Devi, Chennai

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

ITA 872/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.872/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Meena Devi, Non Corporate Ward 5(1), No. 378, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai. Chennai 600 079. [Pan:Aafpd0978D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri D. Anand, Advocate : 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:

Section 250

relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 244 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for 2 I.T.A. No. 872/Chny/20 adjudication ... fairly conceded the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.50,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is liable

Vairavan Kamaraja, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle-(8)1, Chennai

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

ITA 2724/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2724/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Vairavan Kamaraja, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 36, First Main Road, Income Tax, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai 600 087. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Ahapk2551R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Veeraraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Shri V. Veeraraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varuvooru Sreedhar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3 I.T.A. No. 2724/Chny/19 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing various details in the form of paper book, the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that one more opportunity may be afforded

DCIT, Chennai vs. K.Dhandapani and Co. Ltd., Chengalput

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1428/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dcit, K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., Corporate Circle-4(2), No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 034. Vs. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O No.109/Chny/2017 [In Ita No.1428/Chny/2017] "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd., The Dcit, No.C-20, Tvk Industrial Estate, Corporate Circle-4(2), Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aaack 1318C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45

made by the Assessing-Officer in this regard is deleted. The appellant succeeds on this ground.” Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the case are that the assessee company

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Limited (Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is dismissed

ITA 2115/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 250

Taxman 591 SC) and CIT Vs Gujrat Fluoro Chemicals (24 Taxmann.com 338 SC)?" 3. This is a second round of appeal before the Tribunal for the Appellant-Assessee for the Assessment Year 2009-10. In first round of appeal, the Tribunal had disposed off the cross appeals for Assessment Year

Man Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Range -7 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Section 195A

disallowed by the assessing officer in AY 2013-14. The Ld CIT(A), however, deleted the disallowance and hence the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal in that year. As stated by Ld A.R, the ITAT has confirmed the order passed by Ld CIT(A), vide its order dated

M/S. Ssjv Projects Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 866/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Ssjv Projects Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, No.21/6, Ward – 6[1][3], Craig Park Layout, M. G. Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacu 3698 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.07.2022 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, In Relation To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ao Passed The Order Of Assessment Under Section 143(3) Dated 31.03.2016. Against The Additions Made In The Said Order, Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) – 6, Bengaluru Who Disposed Off The Appeal By An Order Dated 09.02.2018. Against The Said Aforesaid Orders Of The Cit(A), Assesse Filed Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Itat. The Hon’Ble Itat In Ita Nos.2195 & 2196/Bang/2018, Order Dated 24.02.2018, Remanded The Matter To The Cit(A) For Fresh Consideration. Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal is dismissed.” Page 3 of 5 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee reads as follows: “2. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income – tax [Appeals], NFAC

Ajit Vasant Pai, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

assessee was accordingly dismissed by the CIT(Appeals). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice a decision of the Mumbai Bench

Ravikumar Tirupati Parthasarathy, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C

order considered the correct indexation value of the year of acquisition and revised the addition to Rs.64,60,469. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment in accordance with the directions of the DRP. 3. The only issue contended in this appeal through ... correcting the index value of the year of acquisition that resulted in final addition of Rs.64,60,469. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The ld. AR submitted that the actual amount of consideration paid by the assessee to the agreement holders

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

deleted the disallowances / additions based on the evidences submitted and allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee by admitting the additional evidence

Rajarathnam'S Jewels, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143(3)

addition of Rs. 47,57,631- made by the AO. 18. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 19. As far as the findings of the CIT(A) that there was a delay in filing appeal by the assessee before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A). ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur Developers India ... further submitted that investment in share capital made by Mr. Samyak Veera includes items which are not part of present pending appeals before the Tribunal. Hence deserves to be deleted from the Chart. The details are as under: ITA Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 & CO 103 & 104/Bang/2018 ITA No.1443/Bang/2018 & CO No.105/Bang/2018 M/s. Kansur

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

Section 147

Legacy Global Projects Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 846/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Arvind S., CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 43B

Appeals) rejected the contentions of the assessee and confirmed the disallowances. Page 3 of 8 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds contending the above disallowances / additions made vide intimation u/s.143(1)(a). Delayed remittance of Employee contribution to Provident Fund

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234DSection 250

prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice. 3. There was a delay of 1173 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Out of this, 715 days was the delay during Covid Period i.e. from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022, which needs to be excluded in view ... dated 10.1.2022. Thus, there was an actual delay of 458 Shri Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bangalore Page 3 of 9 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has explained this delay by way of affidavit stating that the assessee has handed over the appeal paper

Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Chennai vs. ITO Non -Corporate Ward -11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 954/CHNY/2020[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Old No. 8, New No. 6/34, Venkata Iyer Non-Corporate Ward 11(2), Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aaapz3654R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 15.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2012-13. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Time Barred By 520 Days Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In The Form Of An Affidavit, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are time barred by 520 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay, 2 I.T.A. Nos.953 & 954/Chny/20 wherein, it was explained for the delay between the period ... appeal before the first appellate authority and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for both the assessment years and challenged the exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A), wherein, legal issue has been raised

Shri A. Mohamed Ziavuddin, Chennai vs. ITO Non-Corporate Ward-11(2), Chennai

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

ITA 953/CHNY/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

Parthiban, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-7(2), Chennai

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

ITA 562/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 562/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Parthiban, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 83-A, Door No. 9, Thiruvallur Non Corporate Ward 7(2), Street, Jagadhambigai Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 050. [Pan:Biipp0005R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Sitaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 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) 7, Chennai, Dated 17.01.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 14.07.2014 Returning Nil Income & Agricultural Income Of ₹.43,00,530/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & The Assessment Was Completed Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Sitaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(1)(A)

held that reopening is valid. 4. On being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated

DCIT, Chennai vs. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47Section 47xSection 72A(6)

pertaining to the partnership firm as claimed by the appellant's company. Accordingly the appellant's grounds are allowed. Aggrieved, Revenue is 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 stated