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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2460, 2461, 2462 & 2463/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 M/S. Abc Gold Palace, 14-A, Mela Veethi, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur – 614 713. Pan: Aanfa 5950Eе (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Dr. Abhishek Murali, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.02.2026 : 25.02.2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20, All Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

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

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2460, 2461, 2462 & 2463/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 M/S. Abc Gold Palace, 14-A, Mela Veethi, Thiruthuraipoondi, Tiruvarur – 614 713. Pan: Aanfa 5950Eе (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(3), Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Dr. Abhishek Murali, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit : 25.02.2026 : 25.02.2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Different Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20, All Dated 26.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant

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

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

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

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

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