“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

E.Murugan, Kanchipuram vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(30, Tambaram

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

ITA 2206/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2206/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 E. Murugan, The Income Tax Officer, No.3/91, Padavattamman Vs. Non Corporate Ward-22(3), Koil Street, Padur Post, Tambaram. Omr Road, Kazhipattur, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Cixpm-8913-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 54F

determining the value towards allowing exemption u/s. 54F of the Act towards cost of construction/improvement. Aggrieved against all, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, the assessee has raised various grounds, but the above noted issue is the sole issue i.e., assessment of capital gains

Saravana Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-15(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3376/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3376/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 M/S. Saravana Foundation, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 15, Bajanai Koil Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(4), Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. Chennai. [Pan:Abmfs6610H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 17.09.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Chandrasekaran, JCIT

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147oSection 148Section 271BSection 44A

levied under section 271B of the Act. 4. Against confirmation of penalty levied under section 271B of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for deleting the penalty levied

Indus Cityscapes, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 5-C, Ega Trade Centre, Income Tax, 809, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan:Aabci2175A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai Dated 06.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company Is Carrying Real Estate, Construction & Related Activities, Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 30.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.84,76,260/- & The Same Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

ground of appeal on the issue of facts is hereby dismissed.” 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. By referring to paper book page 46 to 51, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the assessee

H.M.Pandey, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2483/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

assessment, I confirm the addition of Rs.73,39,200/- made by the AO under Income from Other Sources. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us filed copy of judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court dated 21.08.2009 in Criminal Appeal

Watanmal (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2407/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T(Tp).A. No. 4/Chny/2018 & I.T.A. No. 2407/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07 & 2008-09 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Watanmal (India) Pvt. Ltd., Old No. 12, New No. 14, Ground Floor, Income Tax, Sripuram Second Street, Royapettah, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai 600 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw6624B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2006- 07 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel -2, Bengaluru Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 254 R.W.S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 27.12.2017. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

departmental authorities concerned as per the provisions of section 144C(5) of Income Tax Act. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that so far as first comparable is concerned, he has pointed from paper book page

Advantage3 Overseas Pvt. Lttd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

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

ITA 921/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ld Cit(A), The Assessee Submitted That It Had Debited “Interest Accrued” Amount Of Rs.61,15,678/- To The Interest Income Account & Accordingly, It Has Disclosed Net Interest Income Of Rs.7,78,04,522/- In The Profit & Loss Account. The Assessee Also Submitted That Form 26As Has Reflected Interest Income Of Rs.7,28,89,135/-** Only & It Has Disclosed More

interest accrued amount of Rs.61,15,678/-. Accordingly, he enhanced the addition to Rs.61,15,678/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. (**There is contradiction between the assessment order and the statement made by the assessee before Ld CIT(A)) 3. We heard the parties

Larsen & Tourbo Publice Charitable Trust, Mumbai-400001 vs. Income Tax Officer, Exem, Circle-1, Mumbai-400012

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

ITA 1064/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Rejected The Appeal Of The Assessee. Aggrieved, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld CIT(A), who rejected the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The first issue relates to the rejection of claim for exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. The argument of the counsel

Paramjit Singh Seehra, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271

said order before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee contended that the reopening of the assessment was merely on the basis of statement recorded under section

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 191/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.191/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Limited, Delhi. 59/2, 1St Floor, Gurudas Heritage, Block-B, 100 Feet Ring Road, Banashankari 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 070. Pan: Aafct 3474 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92C

made in the draft Assessment Order was retained. 10. Aggrieved by the final Order of Assessment, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal raising the ground which we have already set out in the earlier paragraphs. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

M/S. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2243/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Biju, M.K., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80GSection 92C

No.2243/Bang/2019 Page 3 of 24 assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Interest on delayed receivables 5. During the course of TP proceedings, the AO treated interest on delayed receivables as a separate international transaction and called ... upheld the calculation of interest on the delayed receivables considering the credit period of 30 days. Aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. He further submitted that the TP adjustment can be made only

M/S. Ukn Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1739/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(vii)

above disallowances/additions. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals), who upheld the order of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D 4. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee has made huge investments

Virugalpattipudhur Rimary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 632/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.632/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Virugalpattipudhur Primary Ward-1 Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Pollachi. Society, K, 752, Negamam, Virugalpattipudhur, Tirupur-642 120. Pan: Aaaav 9952D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Similar issue on identical facts was subject matter in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of AA-435 Velankattuvalasu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), wherein, the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal

ACIT, Ncc-15 (1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Raj Mohan Poduval, Chennai

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

ITA 2994/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2994/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Late Shri Raj Mohan Poduval, Income Tax, Represented By Legal Heir – Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Smt. Sarasa Poduval, Flat No. 703, Chennai – 600 034. Tvh Quadrant, Lb Road, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan:Bbzpp5771L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Johanson, Addl. Cit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.09.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 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) 15, Chennai, Dated 20.08.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 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

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

Varun Gopinath, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 28(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2315/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhvarun Gopinath Vs. Ito, Ward 28(3)(1) E-2, 503, Bhimashankar Tower No. 6, Vashi Chs, Sec-19A Nerul, Railway Station Navi Mumbai – 400706 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Albpg7827K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Darshan JakariaFor Respondent: Prabhat Kumar Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

directed the A.O for fresh assessment on the issue of exemption u/s 54 of the Act. The time limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal was 60 days from the receipt of order worked out to 10.05.2020, however, because of outbreak of Covid-19 the Hon’be Supreme Court vide

Motorola Mobility India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 368/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri. Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

pricing adjustment made in the software development segment and confirmed the adjustment made towards AMP expenses and warranty expenses. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order giving effect to the DRP’s directions. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned AR submitted that ... confirmed the TP adjustment proposed by the TPO. IT(TP)A No.368/Bang/2022 Page 8 of 14 10. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, learned AR submitted that the TPO has accepted the margins of the trading segment without making any TP adjustments and the impugned

Metric Stream Infotech (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

dated 22.12.2021 in the set aside proceedings. The AO passed the final order of assessment against which the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. In so far as the addition made in the SWD services segment is concerned, the DRP did not give any relief ... dated 22.12.2021 in the set aside proceedings. The AO passed the final order of assessment against which the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 19. The Assessee seeks exclusion of the following 1. Asian Business Exhibition & Conference Ltd. 2. HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. Killick Agencies

Sri. C. N. Babu, Ramanagara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1823/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

give a satisfactory explanation with regard to source of funds out of the aforesaid cash deposits were made. 5. The Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal against the action of the CIT(A) in enhancing the assessment in exercise of his powers u/s.251 of the Act in Shri

Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 15 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 683/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.683/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Srinivasan Arthi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 9 & 10, Madha Koil First Cross Street, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan:Bljpa4271N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao:

For Appellant: Mrs. T V Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 498 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal including 120 days delay owing to Covid-19. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit

Anuradha Chivukula Challa, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Range-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(It)A No.585/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Smt.Anuradha Chivukula Challa The Additional Commissioner No.12, Seshu, 12Th Cross Of Income-Tax, International V. Indiranagar 1St Stage Taxation, Range – 1 Bangalore – 560 038. Bangalore. Pan : Bgapc8765M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, Ca Respondent By : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 08.06.2022. The Order Of The Cit(A) Arises Out Of The Order Of A.O. Imposing Penalty U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017- 2018. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Imposed U/S 271D Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

accepted part consideration in cash. The explanation cannot be accepted. The grounds of appeal are rejected.” 6. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising following grounds:- “1. The impugned penalty order passed by the Learned CIT(A) and Assessing Officer, to the extent prejudicial

Walvoil Fluid Power India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 339/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.339/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Walvoil Fluid Power India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner No.19, 2Nd Cross, 2Nd Main, Of Income Tax, Kiadb Attibele Industrial Area, Circle 7(1)(2), Attibele, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 562 107. Pan: Aaacw 5954E Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.This Appeal Is Against The Final Order Of The Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Dated 28.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Appellant Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. That In The Calculation Of Alp The Ld. Ao Erred In Including Entities Such As M/S Dhp India Ltd & The Sundram Bleistahl

For Appellant: Shri R.E. Balasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

Consequently, the AO passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act. Aggrieved by the final assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.02.2020 in IT(TP)A No.685/Bang/2016 remitted the issue pertaining to exclusion/inclusion of comparables to the file