DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. APPU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Achu Traders, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, No. 11/1288, Madurai M.Pudur Main Road, Vs. Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 [Pan: Aapfa8131B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.359, 360, 361 & 362 /Chny/2019 धििाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 36, 37, 38 & 39/Chny/2019 Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri M.Shahjahan, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Prop. M/S. Madeena Traders Madurai No.Vii/561, M.Pudur Main Road, Vs Govindapuram Post, Palakkad, Kerala-678507 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aiyps1815P]

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 :- 4 -: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: :- 4 -: ITA No.355 & 27 others/Chny/2019 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing

J.SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2065/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Mr. J.Srinivasan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 12B, Thanikachalam Street, Income Tax, Perambur, Central Circle-3(2) Chennai-600 011. Chennai. Pan: Aovps 4456H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeal is 3 condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has filed following grounds of appeal:- “1. For that the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is without jurisdiction, is contrary to Jaw, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate is opposed

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MYUNGHWA AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

delay is condoned. 3.0 Background of the Company: M/s.Myunghwa Automotive Private Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s.Myunghwa Industrial Company Limited, South Korea Myunghwa Automotive Pvt Ltd incorporated as Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, during September 2007. The ITA No.1186/Mds/2016 & CO No.179/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: Company is having its manufacturing facility in Sriperumbadur. The Company is mainly engaged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. M SHAHJAHAN, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI vs. ACHU TRADERS, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2, MADURAI vs. J S NIHAR BANU, PALAKKAD

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355, 356, 357 & 358 /Chny/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 & Co 32, 33, 34 & 35 /Chny/2019

delay of three/four days in filing of the appeals stands condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete theaddition/disallowance made

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 153B(1)(b) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2015-16. Since common issues are involved, all these appeals were heard together and are adjudicated vide this common order passed by tribunal. First we shall take up appeal of the assessee for ay: 2009-10 and since common issues are involved wherein facts are similar, our decision

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 153B(1)(b) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2015-16. Since common issues are involved, all these appeals were heard together and are adjudicated vide this common order passed by tribunal. First we shall take up appeal of the assessee for ay: 2009-10 and since common issues are involved wherein facts are similar, our decision

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 153B(1)(b) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2015-16. Since common issues are involved, all these appeals were heard together and are adjudicated vide this common order passed by tribunal. First we shall take up appeal of the assessee for ay: 2009-10 and since common issues are involved wherein facts are similar, our decision

J SUNDAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 153B(1)(b) of the 1961 Act for ay: 2015-16. Since common issues are involved, all these appeals were heard together and are adjudicated vide this common order passed by tribunal. First we shall take up appeal of the assessee for ay: 2009-10 and since common issues are involved wherein facts are similar, our decision