M/S SHRI JAJANI HOMES,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT-CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S. SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M//S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S SHRI JANAI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD,PONDICHEYYA vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,COC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S. SHIR JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPS,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

condonation of delay as mentioned by the appellant, is merely a bald assertion without any basis, which is not supported by cogent and proper evidence, and the same would not, as such, constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 (3

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

249 ITR 533/114 Taxman 19 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kamataka High Court in the case of CIT v Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230/44 taxmann.com 275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

249 ITR 533/114 Taxman 19 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kamataka High Court in the case of CIT v Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230/44 taxmann.com 275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

249 ITR 533/114 Taxman 19 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kamataka High Court in the case of CIT v Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230/44 taxmann.com 275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

249 ITR 533/114 Taxman 19 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Kamataka High Court in the case of CIT v Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230/44 taxmann.com 275/[2015] 228 Taxman 319. We further observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the revenue against the order

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3

-TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, KURINJIPADI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within prescribed period. Therefore, the delay of 3297 days in filing appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s. 249(3