RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

section 273B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. In the case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole of the period of the delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COIMBATORE vs. MS VISWA AND DEVJI DIAMONDS PVT LTD, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.327/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-2018. The Deputy Commissioner Viswa & Devji Diamonds Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, Vs. New No.16,Old No.239, Corporate Circle 1, T.V.Swamy Road (East) Coimbatore R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. Pan: Aaccv 4942M

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The sole ground raised by the Revenue before us is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,41,81,000/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). ITA No.327 /Chny/2024 4. The brief facts are that

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

condonation of delay II Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section 142

M/S. TRIVITRON HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

condone delay in filing of appeal\nand admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication.\n3.\nThe only issue in the appeal of assessee is as against the\nrevision order passed by the PCIT u/s.263 of the Act that he failed\nto satisfy the twin conditions i.e., for order passes by the AO\nu/s.143(3) of the Act, is erroneous

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.10.2021, 21.12.2021 and 24.01.2022 and served by verification unit through speed post. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed 6 I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/25 the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.10.2021, 21.12.2021 and 24.01.2022 and served by verification unit through speed post. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed 6 I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/25 the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay

AA 293 PANAHALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ERODE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeals filed in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Aa 293 Panahalli Primary Agricultural Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Ward 2(1), 1, Panakkahally, Thalavady Post, Erode. Erode 638 461. [Pan: Aacaa1566A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders All Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 80P Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Act & Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272(1)(D) Of The Act By Rejecting The Prayer Of Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld. Cit(A).

section 142(1) of the Act dated 28.10.2021, 21.12.2021 and 24.01.2022 and served by verification unit through speed post. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed 6 I.T.A. Nos.2020, 2021 & 2022/Chny/25 the appeal of the assessee by rejecting the prayer of condonation of delay

PREETHA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preetha Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 1A, Jhavar Plaza, Nungambakkam Income Tax High Road, Chennai 600 034. Central Circle 3(1), [Pan:Aaepr5656F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 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 (Central), Chennai-1, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 284 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: “3. I State & Submit That My Case Has Been Handled By Mrs. K. Rajalakshmi Who Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & She Has Advised Me After Perusal Of The Order Of Pcit (Central), Chennai-1. She Was Of The Opinion

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. So far as merits of the case is concerned, in this case, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 26.12.2019. Thereafter, on perusal of the assessment records for the assessment year 2017-18, the ld. PCIT has noticed that

P.SHANMUGAM,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.202/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. Shri. P. Shanmugam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, No.11/1, Arumugam Layout, Non Corporate Ward I (5) Anna Nagar, Peelamedu, [Previously Ward Ii (4)] Coimbatore 641 004. Coimbatore

Delay is condoned and appeal is admitted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no 5. issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. As per ld. Authorised Representative it was an assessment which was reopened pursuant to a survey u/s.133A of the Act in the premises of the assessee. As per ld. Authorised Representative assessee had filed

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

condoned the said delay in filing Form 10A vide his order dated 30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently argued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted the returned income and formed an opinion that the assessee was eligible for claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act during scrutiny assessment. He further

GAUTAM MODY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by passing exparte order. 6. We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made

GAUTAM MODY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by passing exparte order. 6. We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made

GAUTAM MODY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NCW-10(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 & 1210/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Gautam Mody, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-5, 2Nd Floor, Jeewan Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Jungpura, New Delhi 110 014. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpg1958Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Gautam Mody, Assessee ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Five Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 10.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Orders Dated 29.01.2025 For Ay 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 & Order Dated 28.03.2024 For Ay 2015-16. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 5. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by passing exparte order. 6. We note that according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee made