RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

RAJALAKSHMI VETTRIVEL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

234A.,234B& 234C of the Income tax Act 3. There was a delay of 744 days in filing all these six appeals before this Tribunal. The ld.A.R drew my attention to the condonation petition/Affidavit filed by the assessee, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT Appellant: Rajalakshmi Vettrivel I state that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act which is consequential. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 3 ITA2056/Chny/2024 Shri Shanmugaundaram Venkatachalapathy

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

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

condone this delay of 23 days and admit appeal filed by assesseea . 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that assessee derives income from business of money lending, supply of labour, house property and other sources. The assessee was searched by Revenue u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2015 at the residence of the assessee at No.21/7

GOMATHI,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NON CORP. WARD 9(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1504/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19 Gomathi, Dcit, No. 13/51, Kongu Salai, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 9(1). Egmore, Chennai. Chennai –600 008. [Pan:Asmpg-0601-K] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. Pradeep, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit.

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: 1) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest deduction of Rs. 18,22,375/- under Section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The learned CIT(A) failed

RAJENDRAN PALANIVELU,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO WARD 1, PUDUKKOTTAI, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3940/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. For that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that once books of accounts are accepted, selective and arbitrary disallowance of expenses is impermissible in law. 7. For that, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating non- submission

OMKARA ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (3),, TIRUPUR

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 626/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Omkara Assets The Income Tax Officer, Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., V. Ward - 1(3), No.57/29, Appachi Nagar Main Tirupur. Road, Kongu Nagar Extension, Tirupur – 641 607. Pan: Aabco 9884G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021

234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 3. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by limitation i.e. 21 days and the assessee has filed necessary petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reason for delay in filing the 3 I.T.A. No.626 /CHNY/2020 appeal. The ld.AR submitted that the delay

PLR TEXTILES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. THE ACIT ,CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 133/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06 Plr Textiles Ltd., The Acit, 8K, Century Plaza, V. Corporate Circle -5(2), 560-562, Mount Road, Chennai – 641 034. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacp-6536-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai, Vide Ita No.153/Cit(A)-3/2018-19For The Assessment Year 2005-06, Dated 13.03.2020. 2. At The Outset, We Find That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Appeal Filed By The Assessee, For Which Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Reasons For Delay Has Been Filed. After Considering The Petition Filed By The Assessee, Reason For Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Due To Covid-19 Pandemic & Also Hearing Both The :-2-:

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) The learned CIT(A)-3, Chennai, grossly erred in holding that the AO could have only reinstated the original assessment order, in the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, and the grounds raised by the assessee by way of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

delay of five days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition

LATE RANGASWAMY SHANMUGAM L/H. B. NANDAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCC-7(1), , CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

condone Late Rangaswamy Shanmugam :: 2 :: the delay of ‘28’ days in filing of appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) denying the deduction u/s.80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’). 4. The brief facts of the case