← 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

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 762/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 761/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri M G Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 760/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 759/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 758/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 757/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

Sri. M.G. Anand Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 756/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 234B

assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim. The assessee is an appeal before the tribunal against the order of the CIT (appeals). 5. We shall first taken up for consideration ITA No.756 to 760/Bang/2021, relating ... starting point. 12. We heard the parties. The addition made towards transfer pricing adjustments contended here is not arising out of the orders appealed before the Tribunal. Therefore we dismiss this ground with a direction to the assessing officer give effect to the orders passed by the appellate authorities

M/S. Hewlett-Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 3, Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2575/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 2575/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K. , CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28

order recomputed the disallowance on software expenses thereby the final assessed income was arrived at Rs.296,20,00,306. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. During the year under consideration the assessee has entered into the following international transactions with its AEs: - Amount Nature of transaction

DCIT vs. M/S Paresh Exports Pvt. Ltd

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

ITA 252/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 153A

entire sales for March 2003 is not made on 31/3/2003. Thus the CIT(APPEALS) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, Revenue filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing the learned D.R. submissions as follows - The conclusion drawn by the Id. CIT(APPEALS) based on 'probability' is merely

M/S Kal Airways Private Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Coporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

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

ITA 230/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.230/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kal Airways Private Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Mrc Income Tax, Corporate Circle 4(2), Nagar Main Road, Mrc Nagar, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 028. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aadck9818J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai, Dated 16.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]..

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT
Section 263

Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 338 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. By filing a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an Affidavit, the assessee has explained the reasons for the delay

M/S Macmillan Publishers India Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2784/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2784/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Macmillan Publishers India The Acit, Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Circle 4(1), No.21, Patullos Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aafcm 5564R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai In Ita No.69/18- 19 Dated 16.07.2019. The Re-Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle 4(1), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2011-12 U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 30.12.2018. I.T.A. No.2784/Chny/2019 2 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Reopening Of Assessment U/S.147 R.W.S 148 Of The Act Even Though There Is No Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly The Material Fact Necessary For Its Assessment For The Relevant Assessment Year & The Original Assessment Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act. For This, Assessee Has Raised Various Grounds Regarding Reopening Which Are Exhaustive & Argumentative, Hence Need Not To Be Reproduced.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

objections filed are rejected. The reasoning given by the Assessing Officer for assumption of jurisdiction s upheld. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We have gone through the case records including

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Considering the above, the appeal is rejected.” Page 3 of 9 3. Aggrieved by the order of NFAC (Appeals), the Assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents ... noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

I.T.Act by Finance Act, 2021 is clarificatory and has got retrospective operation. 5. Aggrieved, assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits, after hearing the learned DR. 6. The learned Departmental Representative supported

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

accrual basis under the head 'Income from other sources'. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of section 55 of the Companies Act, 2013, and pointed out that

M/S. Enzen Global Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(4), Banglaoore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 45

accrual basis under the head 'Income from other sources'. 14. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of section 55 of the Companies Act, 2013, and pointed out that

Thomas Mulayimkal, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 200/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Sankarlingam, CIT (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.CIT

Nos.200 & 199/Chny/22 year 2013-14. 2. Both the appeals filed are by the assessees are time barred by 1080 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee Shri Thomas Mulayimkal in I.T.A No. 200/Chny/2022 has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons ... confirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer in respect of both the assessees. 7. On being aggrieved, both the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee sold the property jointly along with his wife and both of them purchased

Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 199/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.200/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shri Thomas Mulayimkal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.199/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 Smt. Lourdes Mary Arulanandam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 6/8, Periyar Street, Plot No. 176, Anna Non Corporate Ward 22(5), Nagar, Pammal, Chennai 600 075. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Acipt2203L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sankarlingam, Cit (Retd.) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By Different Assessees (Husband & Wife) Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai Both Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri S. Sankarlingam, CIT (Retd.)For Respondent: Shri S. Venkatesh, Addl.CIT

Nos.200 & 199/Chny/22 year 2013-14. 2. Both the appeals filed are by the assessees are time barred by 1080 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee Shri Thomas Mulayimkal in I.T.A No. 200/Chny/2022 has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The reasons ... confirmed the orders of the Assessing Officer in respect of both the assessees. 7. On being aggrieved, both the assessees are in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee sold the property jointly along with his wife and both of them purchased

G. Basavapoorna, Salem vs. ACIT, Salem

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

ITA 915/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 915/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of G. Basavapoorna (Individual), 12, Murugan Nagar, Raman Nagar Po, Income Tax, Circle Iii Mettur Dam, Salem District, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 403. [Pan:Aeppb0023F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 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), Salem, Dated 16.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Disputed Confirmation Of Unexplained Investments Under Section 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice 3 I.T.A. No.915/Chny/20 through RPAD. However, the assessee has filed written submissions

Kali Bmh Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

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

ITA 864/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.864/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kali Bmh Systems P. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 42/6, B2, Chennai Road, Vs. Income Tax, Melacauvery, Kumbakonam 612 002. Circle 2(1), Trichy. [Pan:Aadck0974H]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 47

Bench has noticed that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 12 days 2 I.T.A. No.864/Chny/20 in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the assessee has not filed any condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT, CC - 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Risk Services Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 262/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.262/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Risk Services Ltd., No. 02, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 034. Dare House, N S C Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai 600 001. [Pan:Aabcc6610Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, Fca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.07.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 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) 4 (I/C), Chennai, Dated 26.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Risk Assessment Services & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 25.09.2015 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.2,39,21,070/-. After Following Due Procedure & Considering The 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

explanations of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The first argument of the ld. DR is that the assessee has not received any customers from the Indus Ind Bank and therefore