BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

363 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 13(2)(h)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi441Mumbai380Jaipur367Chennai363Bangalore196Kolkata184Karnataka134Chandigarh128Pune93Hyderabad85Raipur80Amritsar70Ahmedabad56Surat48Cuttack37Calcutta36Rajkot35Lucknow30Indore23SC23Cochin14Nagpur13Visakhapatnam11Jodhpur9Varanasi9Telangana8Guwahati8Agra5Patna5Kerala5Panaji2Dehradun2Orissa2Allahabad1Rajasthan1R.M. LODHA ANIL R. DAVE1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Himachal Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 14874Section 14733Section 143(3)29Addition to Income22Section 234E18Section 153A16Section 26314Exemption10Limitation/Time-bar

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 916/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

h), if any funds of the trust or institution are, or continue to remain, invested for any period during the previous year ------ in which a person referred to sub-section(3) has substantial interest (the loan given to M/s.PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust where the Managing Trustee is an interested person with substantial interest) and clause (b), if any land

Showing 1–20 of 363 · Page 1 of 19

...
9
Section 1328
Natural Justice8
Section 69A7

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3115/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

h), if any funds of the trust or institution are, or continue to remain, invested for any period during the previous year ------ in which a person referred to sub-section(3) has substantial interest (the loan given to M/s.PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust where the Managing Trustee is an interested person with substantial interest) and clause (b), if any land

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3114/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

h), if any funds of the trust or institution are, or continue to remain, invested for any period during the previous year ------ in which a person referred to sub-section(3) has substantial interest (the loan given to M/s.PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust where the Managing Trustee is an interested person with substantial interest) and clause (b), if any land

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 2915/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

h), if any funds of the trust or institution are, or continue to remain, invested for any period during the previous year ------ in which a person referred to sub-section(3) has substantial interest (the loan given to M/s.PMR Bangaru Subbammal Educational Trust where the Managing Trustee is an interested person with substantial interest) and clause (b), if any land

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

13. The main controversy arises in these cases because of the reason that the incentives were given through the mechanism of price differential and the duty differential. According to the Department, price and costs are essential items that are basic to the profit making process and that any price related mechanism would normally be presumed to be revenue in nature

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

13. The main controversy arises in these cases because of the reason that the incentives were given through the mechanism of price differential and the duty differential. According to the Department, price and costs are essential items that are basic to the profit making process and that any price related mechanism would normally be presumed to be revenue in nature

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3326/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 28

13. The main controversy arises in these cases because of the reason that the incentives were given through the mechanism of price differential and the duty differential. According to the Department, price and costs are essential items that are basic to the profit making process and that any price related mechanism would normally be presumed to be revenue in nature

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1314/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1313/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1315/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1317/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1316/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

H.NARAYANLAL,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1318/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 131

H. Narayanlal … PETITIONER/APPELLANT PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY The Petitioner humbly submits as follows: 1.The Petitioner is an individual hailing from agricultural family born in the desert state of Rajashthan. I not even studied up to VI standard and I do not know any other language except Hindi. 2. I migrated to Chennai in and around 1980 in search

NATARAJAN,CUDDALORE vs. ITO,ITWARD-1(1) , CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 123/CHNY/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.123/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-2012 Shri Natarajan The Income Tax Officer, 353, Pudupettai Main Road, Vs. International Taxation, Indira Nagar, C. Puthupettai, Ward 2(1), Parangipettai Post, Chennai 600 006 Cuddalore 608 502. Pan: Anfpn 9506Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. J. Saravanan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

condone the delay and admit the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - ‘’A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 16, Chennai ["CIT(A)"] and Assessing Officer ("AO"), is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case, disregarding the evidences and the case

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate & Shri. Hitesh, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :-2-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM : These two appeals arise

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate & Shri. Hitesh, Advocate. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.11.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :-2-: ITA. Nos:1565 & 1566/Chny/2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM : These two appeals arise

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 329/CHNY/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

condonation of delay. Considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(A) held as under: - 4.1.1 The appeal is filed beyond prescribed time, with almost 7 years delay and liable to be rejected on that basis itself. However, it is being decided on merits.” ITA No.328 to 351/Chny/2023 No other findings have been rendered in the impugned order on delay. Upon perusal

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 346/CHNY/2023[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

condonation of delay. Considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(A) held as under: - 4.1.1 The appeal is filed beyond prescribed time, with almost 7 years delay and liable to be rejected on that basis itself. However, it is being decided on merits.” ITA No.328 to 351/Chny/2023 No other findings have been rendered in the impugned order on delay. Upon perusal

M/S CIGFILLIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 335/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24Q-Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

condonation of delay. Considering assessee’s submissions, Ld. CIT(A) held as under: - 4.1.1 The appeal is filed beyond prescribed time, with almost 7 years delay and liable to be rejected on that basis itself. However, it is being decided on merits.” ITA No.328 to 351/Chny/2023 No other findings have been rendered in the impugned order on delay. Upon perusal