← 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. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/BANG/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dated 26.03.2009 upheld the TP adjustment. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. Upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal vide order dated 21.04.2017 in IT(TP)A No.699/Bang/2009 granted partial relief. However, the Tribunal remanded the matter ... assessment order dated 26.04.2021 in line with the DRP’s directions. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Therefore, in this appeal, we are required to consider the determination of ALP of the back-office support services rendered

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputty Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1315/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm It(Tp)A No.1315/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Opto Circuits India Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of No.38, Electronic City Road Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(2) V. Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan : Aaaco2165P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, Itp Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. There Is A Delay Of 171 Days In Filing This Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit Of Managing Director Of The Assessee, Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal. On Perusal Of The Reasons Stated, We Find That The Assessee By Mistake Had Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) (As Against The Final Assessment Order) & On Realizing The Mistake, Immediately The Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Tribunal. We Find There Is A Reasonable Cause For Belated Filing

For Appellant: Sri.Shiva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

r.w.s. 144C of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2011-2012. 2. There is a delay of 171 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit of Managing Director of the assessee, stating therein ... filed AN appeal before the CIT(A) (as against the final assessment order) and on realizing the mistake, immediately the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. We find there is a reasonable cause for belated filing 2 IT(TP)A No.1315/Bang/2017. M/s.Opto Circuits India Limited. of this appeal

M/S. Alchymars Icm Sm Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Range-I, Chennai

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

ITA 862/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 43A

fluctuation on account of foreign currency loans taken to acquire fixed capital assets will be a capital loss. Aggrieved, assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee explained that assessee has availed external commercial borrowing to part finance its expansion project. The loan

ITO, Ward - II (2), Coimbatore vs. Shri Gopalakrishnan Prasanna Venkatesan, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1935/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1935/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Gopalakrishnan Prasanna Ward Ii(2), 8Th Floor, 63, Venkatesan, No. 60, G.G. Residency, Race Course, Alagesan Road No. 2, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore 641 018. Coimbatore 641 011. [Pan:Afspp9761L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Tharun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2022 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) 2, Coimbatore, Dated 04.04.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Of ₹.50,00,000/- Fixed By The Cbdt To File An Appeal By The Revenue Before The Tribunal As Per The 2

For Appellant: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Tharun, Advocate for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

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

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

addition. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Revenue has raised identical ground in Assessment Year 2011-12- in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.4459/Mum/2015(supra), challenging deletion of the addition made on account of interim bonus. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has restored

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1716/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

addition. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Revenue has raised identical ground in Assessment Year 2011-12- in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.4459/Mum/2015(supra), challenging deletion of the addition made on account of interim bonus. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has restored

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1715/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

addition. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the Revenue has raised identical ground in Assessment Year 2011-12- in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.4459/Mum/2015(supra), challenging deletion of the addition made on account of interim bonus. We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has restored

Ambitious Plastomac Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1485/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ambitious Plastomac Company The Dcit, Cc-39, Ltd., Mumbai. 405, Royal Square, Nr. Jbk Arcade, Vs. Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad-380 060. Pan No. Aaaca 3237 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

sustained the addition of CIT(A) sustained the addition of ₹2,39,553/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

No.212/Bang/2021. M/s.Global E-Business Operations Pvt.Ltd. 4. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal, raising grounds with regard to the transfer pricing adjustment as well as corporate tax disallowance. However, during the course of hearing,, as regards the transfer pricing adjustment

Enmas India Private Limited, Tiruvallur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 714/CHNY/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.714/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020 -21 M/S. Enmas India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Sp 107, Eom Square Ambattur, Vs. Income Tax, Ambattur Indl. Estate S.O., Tiruvallur, Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. Tamil Nadu 600 058. [Pan:Aabce4825F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. & Shri Sriraj Gokavarapu, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 03.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2020-21 On 16.12.2020 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.4,77,23,830/-. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The 2

For Appellant: Shri Zakir Hussain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing Form No. 3CA, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company has deposited the amount towards employee ... upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer by confirming the disallowance. 6. Similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos. 402 & 403/Chny/2021 for the assessment years

Sri Ram Samaj, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward - 3, Chennai

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

ITA 709/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.707, 708 & 709/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sri Ram Samaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Arya Gowda Road, Exemption Ward 3, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacts5436N] (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 : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 23.07.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2015-16 & Order Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Completed On 2

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

this appeal becomes infructuous. 6.0 As a result, this appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all the assessment years. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) should not have dismissed

Sri Ram Samaj, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward - 3, Chennai

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

ITA 708/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.707, 708 & 709/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sri Ram Samaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Arya Gowda Road, Exemption Ward 3, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacts5436N] (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 : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 23.07.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2015-16 & Order Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Completed On 2

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

this appeal becomes infructuous. 6.0 As a result, this appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all the assessment years. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) should not have dismissed

Sri Ram Samaj, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward - 3, Chennai

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

ITA 707/CHNY/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.707, 708 & 709/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2015-16 & 2017-18 Sri Ram Samaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Arya Gowda Road, Exemption Ward 3, West Mambalam, Chennai 600 033. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aacts5436N] (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 : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 23.07.2022 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2015-16 & Order Dated 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Completed On 2

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

this appeal becomes infructuous. 6.0 As a result, this appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for all the assessment years. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) should not have dismissed

M/S Bab Leather Products International, Thirumudivakkam vs. DCIT, Chenai

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.665/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Bab Leather Products The Deputy Commissioner Of International, 162/163, Sidco Vs. Income Tax, Industrial Estate, Thirumudivakkam, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Aaafb6228M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 28.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 23.09.2015 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.54,09,150/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company has deposited the amount towards employee’s 3 I.T.A. No. 665/Chny/22 ... passed by the Assessing Officer by confirming the disallowance. 4 I.T.A. No. 665/Chny/22 6.1 Similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos. 402 & 403/Chny/2021 for the assessment years

Kalpanadevi, Pondicherry vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 664/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.664/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalpanadevi, The Assistant Director Of 34, Koil Mania Street, Vs. Income Tax, Dharmapuri, Pondicherry 605 009. Cpc, Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Csjpk5198N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 10.06.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Declaring The Total Income At ₹.14,89,000/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under 2

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. N. Dhandapani, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By filing summary of payments made as per PF Act and ESI Act as well as Form ... upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer by confirming the disallowance. 6. Similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Adyar Ananda Bhavan Sweets India P. Ltd. v. ACIT I.T.A. Nos. 402 & 403/Chny/2021 for the assessment years

M/S Melongos India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 651/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.650 & 651/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Melongos India P. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 16, Mullai Street, Lenin Nagar, Corporate Ward 4(1), Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. Chennai [Pan:Aabcm8934H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Both Dated 09.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delay By 818 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Within The Lockdown Extended Period Allowed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Due

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessment years 2013- 14 and 2015-16. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delay by 818 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and also within the lockdown extended period ... raised any serious objection. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, the delay of 818 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s

M/S Melongos India P Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 650/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.650 & 651/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Melongos India P. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 16, Mullai Street, Lenin Nagar, Corporate Ward 4(1), Ambattur, Chennai 600 053. Chennai [Pan:Aabcm8934H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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) 8, Chennai, Both Dated 09.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013- 14 & 2015-16. 2. Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delay By 818 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Within The Lockdown Extended Period Allowed By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Due

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessment years 2013- 14 and 2015-16. 2. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delay by 818 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and also within the lockdown extended period ... raised any serious objection. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, the delay of 818 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s

M/S Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Circle 4 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 649/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.649/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Maxima Automation Solutions Pvt. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Represented By Its Managing Income Tax, Director, No. 2/87, Raghaava Nagar, Corporate Circle 4(1), 7Th Street, Moovarasampet, Chennai Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091. [Pan:Aagcm1970L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. James Victor Rajkumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 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 25.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By Eight Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed A 2

For Appellant: Shri P. James Victor RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

relevant to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by eight days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, for which, the assessee has filed a 2 I.T.A. No. 649/Chny/22 petition for condonation of the delay in support of an affidavit, to which ... after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A)-NFAC confirmed the disallowance. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company has deposited the amount towards employee’s contribution

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Indian Hotels Companies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2408/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as deletion of secondary transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant was not satisfied by the relief granted by the DRP, the Assessee has also preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2348/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, Sh. PratikFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 92C

disallowance of INR 3.87 Crores under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as well as deletion of secondary transfer pricing adjustment in appeal before the Tribunal. Since the Appellant was not satisfied by the relief granted by the DRP, the Assessee has also preferred appeal before the Tribunal challenging