ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year

P.K.C.PRABHU,MADURAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, MADURAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

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

246 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of condonation petition wherein it has been submitted that delay occurred due to lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned order is stated to have been received by the assessee on 19.03.2020 which falls in the lockdown period during

CRAFTS COUNCIL OF TAMILNADU,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 V. M/S.Crafts Council Of Tamilnadu, The Dy. Commissioner- 339, Vue Grande, Chinnasamy Road, Of Income Tax New Siddhapudur, (Exemptions), Coimbatore-641 044. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aaaac 1086 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.P.S.Sadasivan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.08.2023

246 of the Act. 9. The Appellant humbly plead the Honourable Bench to set aside the order under section 154 and approve the claim of application of Rs.35,74,097/- and determine the income under the Provisions of Section 11 of the Act and pass such other or further orders as he may deem fit and proper in this case

GNANAPRAGASAM BHASKAR,DINDIGUL vs. ITO, NCW-1,, DINDIGUL

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gnanapragasam Bhaskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/22-C, Sahayamatha Colony, Non Corporate Ward 1, T.V.K. Nagar, Chinnalapatti Post, Dindigul. Dindigul 624 301. [Pan:Ahtpb8288M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Deeptha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 246 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

246 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No.3069/Chny/24 we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication

RATHINASAMY PUSHPAVENI,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1378/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rathinasamy Pushpaveni, The Income Tax Officer, Rohini Garden, Vs. Ward-1(1), Azhagapuram Pudur, Salem. Salem – 636 016. [Pan: Bxxpp-0274-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

condone delay of 344 days, while it was filed ear after receipt of an order dated 10-O1-2023, passed by Principal Commissioner I Income- tax under section 264. 2. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have recognized that a petition dated 23-05-2022 for remedy under section 264 had been filed on 16-03-2022 against the penalty) order passed

SRI NIDHI FINANCE,SALEM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), SALEM

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

condone the delay, that should be on\ncost. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case\nand submissions of the Id. AR and Id. DR, we deem it proper to\ncondone the delay subject to the condition of payment of cost of\n₹.50,000/- in favour of the State Legal Aid Authority, Hon'ble Madras\nHigh Court

APNA MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.553/Chny/2024 Apna Medical & Educational Cit(Exemptions) बनाम/ Charitable Society Chennai. No.31, Menod Street, Vs. Purusawalkam, Chennai-600 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaita-8011-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar (Ca) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri V.Nandakumar(Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

section (5) of Sec.80G vide impugned order dated 29-04-2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. The registry has noted a delay of 246 days in the appeal, the condonation

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

condoned and appeals are admitted. Similarly, there is a delay of 8 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue, we have considered the explanations in the affidavit and considered the delay and admitted the Revenue appeals. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: :- 3 -: ITA Nos.1671, 1801, 1802, 1803, 1804, 2034 & 2035/Mds/2014 3.1 The order

GAMBHIR CHORIDA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 4(4), CHENNAI

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

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

246(1) is a valid one. (iv) The Learned CIT(A) - 5 ought not to have upheld the addition of Rs 10,00,000 as the same constituted a capital receipt not liable for tax as per 51 of the IT Act, 1961. (v) The order of the learned CIT(A) -5 is incomplete