RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

3.” Every day’s delay must be explained “does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

ABC GOLD PALACE,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly-allowed

142 has been issued to\nhim, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but\nno notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and\nlimitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143\nhas expired, or\n(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before

SHRI GHEESULAI PRAVEEN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 5(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

SHRI KEVALCHAND MANOHARCHAND,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-1(3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

DAMAYANTHI DEVAKINANDAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

SHRI GHEESULAI PRAVEEN,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 5(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt.Damayanthi Devakinandan- V. The Asst. Commissioner – Harlalka, Of Income Tax, No.6A, Govindan Street, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 029. [Pan: Aabph 2694 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone this brief delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3.5 In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income on 09.07.2014 reporting an income of Rs.3,78,040/-. The ld.AO noted that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gains (in short “LTCG") on sale of 4000 shares of M/s.Kappac Pharma, for a consideration of Rs.28

ABC GOLD PALACE,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly-allowed

condone the delay and proceed to\ndispose off the appeals on merits.\n3. At the outset, we notice that assessee has filed additional\ngrounds raising legal issue. The legal issue raised in the additional\nground is regarding validity of notice issued u/s.153C of the Act\nsubsequent to 01.04.2021 (According to the assessee notice should\nhave been issued u/s.148

ABC GOLD PALACE,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly-allowed

142 has been issued to\nhim, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but\nno notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and\nlimitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143\nhas expired, or\n(c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before

ABC GOLD PALACE,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly-allowed

condone the delay and proceed to\ndispose off the appeals on merits.\n3. At the outset, we notice that assessee has filed additional\ngrounds raising legal issue. The legal issue raised in the additional\nground is regarding validity of notice issued u/s.153C of the Act\nsubsequent to 01.04.2021 (According to the assessee notice should\nhave been issued u/s.148

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

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

3 -: in the firm M/s. K.S. Palaniswamy & Co., Chartered Accountants, Coimbatore. Shri. V. Ramnath in the said affidavit has given reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. According to his affidavit, the appeal was to be filed by one Shri. Karthik Kumar an articled clerk in his office who had left abruptly, without informing that the appeal

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is partly\nallowed

condonation\nunder section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Id. CIT(E). The Id. CIT(E)\ncondoned the said delay in filing Form 10A vide his order dated\n30.11.2016 and referred to page 82 of the paper book. He vehemently\nargued that the Assessing Officer, considering all the details, accepted\nthe returned income and formed an opinion that

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME CORPORATE CIRCLE 1-1, CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

142 taxmann.com 274 (Bangalore - Trib.)\n15.1\nFurther, the Hyderabad Bench of the ITAT in the case of S&P Capital\nIQ (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra) and the Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of\nI & B Seeds (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that by way of amendment through Finance\nAct, 2021 clause (b) of Section