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.

1,539 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,195Chennai1,539Delhi1,493Kolkata1,415Hyderabad766Bangalore727Ahmedabad725Pune722Jaipur453Surat356Chandigarh335Visakhapatnam292Cochin276Indore275Lucknow198Nagpur197Amritsar190Karnataka169Rajkot168Raipur166Patna136Cuttack99Panaji92Calcutta82Agra78Guwahati52Jodhpur48Allahabad38Dehradun37Jabalpur33Varanasi22SC15Telangana13Ranchi12Himachal Pradesh4Andhra Pradesh4Orissa3Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)71Addition to Income57Section 26345Condonation of Delay40Section 143(1)36Section 250(6)33Section 14826Disallowance26Section 153C

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)

143(3) r.w.s 263 be quashed, exemption u/s 11 be allowed and consequently addition needs to be deleted. 4 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 1,539 · Page 1 of 77

...
24
Section 36(1)(viia)24
Deduction24
Section 143(2)19

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)

143(3) r.w.s 263 be quashed, exemption u/s 11 be allowed and consequently addition needs to be deleted. 4 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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)

143(3) r.w.s 263 be quashed, exemption u/s 11 be allowed and consequently addition needs to be deleted. 4 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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)

143(3) r.w.s 263 be quashed, exemption u/s 11 be allowed and consequently addition needs to be deleted. 4 I.TA. Nos. 2915, 3114 & 3115/Chny/2019 916/Chny/2020 10. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal at or before the time of hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

P.SHANMUGAM,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 202/CHNY/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 292B

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

SUNTEC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3252/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

3) / 144 of the Act). Assessee, against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, has filed a rectification application under section 154 of the Act (vide application dated 16.06.2020) and the same is pending disposal. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has directed the AO to dispose off the said rectification application dated 16.06.2020. Moreover, if assessee

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional issue challenging legality of reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act as well raising challenge on merits of the additions made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) was , inter-alia

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional issue challenging legality of reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act as well raising challenge on merits of the additions made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) was , inter-alia

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional issue challenging legality of reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act as well raising challenge on merits of the additions made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) was , inter-alia

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, the assessee filed first appeal before Ld.CIT(A) raising both jurisdictional issue challenging legality of reopening of the concluded assessment by invoking provisions of Section 147 of the 1961 Act as well raising challenge on merits of the additions made by the AO. The learned CIT(A) was , inter-alia

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of an amount of Rs.13

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

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

3 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. He submits that the end of the relevant assessment year is 31.03.2015 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021. He argued vehemently that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued is beyond four years

M/S EPIMONEY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO/ACIT, CORPORATE WARD-3(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 727/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.727/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Epimoney Private Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/Acit, No. 119, 2Nd Floor, Greenways Towers, Corporate Ward 3(3), St. Mary’S Road, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaacu1013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2023 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-Chennai 3, Chennai, Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43A

delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 29.09.2018 claiming a total loss of ₹.3,58,59,222/-. The assessment under section 143

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

3) of the Act that all transactions were through banking channels. Hence, the argument of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted has to necessarily fall. Hence, we hold that there is inherent defect in the notice dated 30.3.2016 issued under Section

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

3) of the Act that all transactions were through banking channels. Hence, the argument of Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue that both limbs of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted has to necessarily fall. Hence, we hold that there is inherent defect in the notice dated 30.3.2016 issued under Section

G2K TRUST,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 3113/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(1)

condoning the delay of 2235 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits. 6. We note that, at the outset, the CPC Bengaluru passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 24.03.2019. But, however, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority with a delay

G2K TRUST,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 3114/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3113 & 3114/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 G2K Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 5, Abila Avenue, Santosh Garden, Ward 2(1), Kulumani Main Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. Trichy 620 102. [Pan: Aactg4763G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. K. Abhirame, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Mythili, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 04.07.2025 & 15.07.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. K. Abhirame, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(1)

condoning the delay of 2235 days in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits. 6. We note that, at the outset, the CPC Bengaluru passed intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 24.03.2019. But, however, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority with a delay

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC-4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 108/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed on 30.03.2015 determining the assessed income of the assessee at ₹.77,91,865/-. Thereafter, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions by dismissing the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years. However

MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT, CC 4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 109/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 108 & 109/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prithvi Chopda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was completed on 30.03.2015 determining the assessed income of the assessee at ₹.77,91,865/-. Thereafter, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions by dismissing the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years. However

MUKTHA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD -4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.361/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Muktha Infrastructure (P) Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward 4(1), Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. Chennai. [Pan: Aafcm0703Q] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 06.11.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Also Confirming The Addition Of ₹.3,10,33,094/- Under Section 115Jb Of The Act.

For Respondent: Ms. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

delay of 17 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring NIL income. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143