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.

281 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 150clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna305Chennai281Mumbai138Delhi122Karnataka102Kolkata86Ahmedabad84Bangalore83Hyderabad81Jaipur60Pune43Chandigarh36Calcutta34Nagpur27Surat23Indore22Lucknow18Rajkot13Visakhapatnam11Amritsar10Cochin8Allahabad8Cuttack8Varanasi7Kerala6Panaji6Guwahati5Raipur5Jodhpur4SC3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Rajasthan1Telangana1Andhra Pradesh1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 153A66Limitation/Time-bar63Condonation of Delay62Section 13248Section 143(3)46Addition to Income33Section 14722Section 36(1)(va)19Disallowance

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1108/CHNY/2017[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

Showing 1–20 of 281 · Page 1 of 15

...
16
Section 14815
Section 43B14
Section 2(24)(x)12
ITA 1111/CHNY/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

ITA 1106/CHNY/2017[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

ITA 1107/CHNY/2017[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

ITA 1109/CHNY/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

ITA 1110/CHNY/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JICIT, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 234A

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

JAGANNATHAN BASKAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , HOSUR

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

ITA 2629/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

condonation of delay in filing the appeal, when the time allowed for the same is reckoned from the original date of the intimation order under Section 143(1) being 27 March 2019. The learned JCIT(A) did not admit the appeal for adjudication that there was no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Assessee further challenged the order

VIJAYA MEDICAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1698/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1698/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2024-25 Vijaya Medical & Educational Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax New No.434, Old No.180, Nsk Salai, (Exemptions), Vadapalani, Chennai. Chennai-600 026. [Pan: Aaatv0197R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.A.Sittrarasu, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.A.Sittrarasu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

delay of 150 days may be condoned. It was argued that grave injustice is being caused by the denial of the Page - 2 - of 8 registration u/s 80G. The Ld.Counsel also drew our attention to the amended provisions of the Finance Act as per clause-(iv) of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 2Section 35

delay and therefore, the same is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal

ZEYA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2513/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI vs. GENDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2033/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

KUGEL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 348/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

DHARMA PROMOTERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2514/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

GENDA BUILDCONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

DHARMA PROMOTERS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2085/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

SYS SANTHWANAM,NILGIRIS vs. ITO, WARD-1,, OOTY

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

ITA 2747/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(1)

150’ days, considering the overall facts noted (supra), we condone the delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A); and further note that even though assessee doesn’t enjoy in this relevant AY 2019-20, section

MR. N. NACHIMUTHU,SALEM vs. ITO, SALEM

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

ITA 2840/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru R.L Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Supriya Pal, JCIT
Section 221Section 69

delay of 131 days in filing the appeal before him. 2. The fact of the case is that, the assessee carried the appeal against the assessment order before the CIT (Appeals) belatedly by 131 days. The assessee filed condonation petition accompanied with appeal stating that the assessee hired a Chartered Accountant by name Shri Muruganandam, Chartered Accountant, Erode

SYED NAZEER SYED FAYAZ,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

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

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

Section 14, which encompasses similar situation where the litigant spends time in alternative forum in good faith, more particularly when the Appellant assailed the Reassessment Order by filing Rectification Application within 30 days, being time limit to have filed the first appeal, thereby taking a narrow, hyper-technical view. 5) Without prejudice, the Learned First Appellate Authority, despite reproducing

ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, HOSUR vs. M/S. UTHANGRAI SRI VIDYA MANDIR EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KRISHNAGIRI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 372/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

150 non-teaching staff. During the elections of Tamil Nadu State Assembly, information was received from District Collector of Krishnagiri that the trust was having unaccounted cash to the tune of Rs.2.75 crores and gold coins of 245 grams. Accordingly, the investigation wing of the Income-tax Department issued warrant of authorization u/s.132 of the Act by Director of Income

UTHANGARAI SRI VIDYA MANDIR EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,KRISHNAGIRI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, HOSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 644/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

150 non-teaching staff. During the elections of Tamil Nadu State Assembly, information was received from District Collector of Krishnagiri that the trust was having unaccounted cash to the tune of Rs.2.75 crores and gold coins of 245 grams. Accordingly, the investigation wing of the Income-tax Department issued warrant of authorization u/s.132 of the Act by Director of Income