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.

45 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 194C(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Kolkata51Mumbai48Chennai45Delhi36Jaipur35Karnataka22Cuttack13Bangalore13Raipur12Pune12Indore12Hyderabad11Lucknow9Ahmedabad8Patna6Rajkot4Cochin4Visakhapatnam4Amritsar4Chandigarh3Ranchi2Varanasi2Surat2Allahabad2Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Agra1Nagpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 4046Section 143(3)31TDS31Addition to Income27Deduction27Condonation of Delay26Section 194C24Disallowance20Section 201(1)

ALBERT & CO. P LTD. ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1) , CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

condone the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 which were selected I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 for detailed scrutiny

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 14713
Section 26313
Section 40a9

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2578/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

condone the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 which were selected I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 for detailed scrutiny

ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2577/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 201(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

condone the delay of 2 days in filing the appeal and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 5. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 which were selected I.T.A. Nos. 1618/CHNY/2017 &. 2577 & 2578/CHNY/2018 Assessment Years : 2012 -13, 2013 -14 & 2014 -15 for detailed scrutiny

M/S. JENIRICH AGRO PRODUCTS P. LTD.,,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -1 , , TUTICORIN

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

ITA 2631/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2631/Chny/2019 "नधा%रणवष%/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 31.03.2021
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

condone the delay. 4. The PCIT, Madurai-1 in his order passed u/s. 263 dated 28.03.2019 set aside the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) dated 27.12.2016 in the case of M/s. JenirichAgro Products P Ltd., the assessee , for the assessment year 2014-15, holding , inter alia, that it is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial

DCIT, MADURAI vs. SRI PARAMESWARI SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, ARUPPUKOTTAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for 12

ITA 1364/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1364/Chny/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Sri Parameswari Spinning Income Tax, Mills Private Limited, Corporate Circle 2, 4A, Mill Premises, 38/39, Madurai. Great Cotton Road, Pandalgudi, Aruppukottai.

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 194(6)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

Delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted. ITA No. 1364/2016. :- 2 -: 2. Revenue has altogether raised four grounds of which grounds 1 & 4 are general in nature needing no specific adjudication. Vide its ground No.2, grievance of the Revenue is that ld. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted a disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.14A of the Income

THE KTM JEWELLERY LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CORPORAE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

194C and decide as per law. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. As rightly pointed out by Ld. AR, the issue of deduction of late remittance of ESI / PF stood squarely covered in assessee’s favor by our decision in lead order titled as M/s Benco Thermal Technologies Private Ltd. V/s Asstt. Director of Income

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW CARRYING CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD-12(1)I/C, CHENNAI

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

ITA 229/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 229/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 4o

condone delay in filing appeal filed by the assessee. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - 8, Chennai (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred as PCIT-8) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is contrary and bad in law, to the facts

INFONET COMM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

ITA 2842/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2842/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

1 day in filing appeal before the Tribunal for which necessary petition for condonation of appeal along with affidavit has been filed explaining the reason for delay in filing the appeal. The ld.AR further submitted that 3 I.TA. No. 2842/Chny/2019 the delay in filing the said appeal was neither willful nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control

T vs. CREDIT SERVICES LIMITED,CHENNAIVS.ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas that of cross objection of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 998/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Smt.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 194ASection 201Section 251(1)Section 40

194C Paid to Amex Card 3,72,625 Expenses Total in " 17,25,125 Ld. Assessing Officer made a disallowance invoking Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. ITA No. 989 /2018 :- 4 -: & CO 112/18 6. In its appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), argument of the assessee was that recipients of the interest commission and consultancy fees

THOTTIAPATTI MUTHUSAMY MOHAN,NAMAKKAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1,, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1327/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thottiapatti Muthusamy Mohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 629, Salem Road, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Namakkal. [Pan:Aldpm2174M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-13, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. 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 Addition Made By The Assessing Officer By Passing Exparte Order In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 253(6)

194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR]. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued 4 I.T.A. No.1327/Chny/25 statutory notices under section 143(2), 142(1), 142(1) r.w.s. 129 as well as 142(1) r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, there was no compliance from the assessee to any of the notices issued

RAMASAMY DHANDAPANI,PALANI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DINDIGUL

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1912/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayramasamy Dhandapani, I.T.O., 39, Vepan Valasu Periya Thottam, Vs. Ward-1, Poolampatty (P.O.), Palani Taluk, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu-624613 Pan No. Bhnpd 5800 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194C

condone the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On the merit of the case, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and did not file his original return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed

BASKARAN,TRICHY vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

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

ITA 201/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.201/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Baskaran, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 5, Ii Floor, Chitra Complex Trichy, Income Tax, Circle I, Trichy 620 002. No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Thiruchirappalli 620 001. [Pan:Aadhb7838N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sarangan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 22.12.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On 01.10.2013 Admitting Income Of ₹.13,23,700/-. This Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under The Cass. A Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Issued On 02.09.2014 & Served On The Assessee On 03.09.2014. 2

For Appellant: Shri A. Sarangan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40a

section 194I and 194C of the Act respectively. 3. The assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 325 days in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal as no sufficient cause was shown

POUN POULTRY FARM,PALANI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DINDIGUL

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

ITA 448/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.448/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Poun Poultry Farm, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 188, Anna Nagar, Palani, Income Tax, Dindigul Dt. - 624 601, Circle 1, Dindigul. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aadfp6850E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai – 1, Madurai, Dated 26.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

delay of five days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the order passed by the ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act is correct or not. In this case, the assessee filed its return of income by admitting total income

DCIT, PONDICHERRY vs. INTEGRA SOFTWARE SERVICES P. LTD., PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 1099/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 15CSection 194CSection 195Section 40

194C which were not available in the records. 5. For the above and for any other reasons that may be adduced at the time of hearing the order of the CIT(A) may be cancelled and that of the AO may be restored. Condonation of delay: There was delay of 3 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue