ABC GOLD PALACE,TIRUVARUR vs. ITO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly-allowed

250 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The relevant\n Assessment Years are 2017-18 to 2020-21.\n:- 2 -:\nITA Nos.2460 to 2463/Chny/2025\n2. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the appeals. The assessee\nhas filed an affidavit along with petition for condonation of delay\nstating therein the reasons for belated filing

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

D.SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

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

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 19 10. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. R K M POWERGEN PRIVATE LIMITED, T NAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue for adjudication.\n3.\nThe revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14:\n“2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(1) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs.615.34 crores, being income from other sources

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

section 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The orders of CIT(A) arise out\nof orders of AO imposing penalties u/s.271(1)(c) / 270A / 271AA\nof the Act. The relevant Assessment Years are 2015-16, 2017-18,\nto 2021-22. The details of the respective appeals preferred by the\nRevenue are as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. R K M POWERGEN PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue for the both the\n

condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the revenue for adjudication.\n3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14:\n\"2. The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s. 56(1) of the IT Act, amounting to Rs.615.34 crores, being income from other sources

M.ARUN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC-2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.573/Chny/2021 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2008-09

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. 10. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio laid down

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Delay condoned. 2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. Pending application stands disposed of. ITA Nos.905 to 912/Chny/2020 11. Similar is the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery [2017 88 taxmann.com 413] wherein Hon’ble Court has confirmed the ratio