BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

425 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai425Kolkata333Delhi284Mumbai268Pune199Bangalore164Hyderabad135Karnataka114Jaipur95Chandigarh76Indore66Calcutta65Ahmedabad65Cuttack54Rajkot50Panaji41Surat37Visakhapatnam36Raipur34Cochin28Nagpur27Patna21Amritsar21Lucknow19Dehradun9SC8Varanasi7Agra6Jabalpur6Jodhpur5Telangana4Guwahati3Allahabad2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 148227Section 26394Section 143(3)68Section 14760Addition to Income36Section 148A34Section 36(1)(viia)25Revision u/s 26325Section 144B

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

Showing 1–20 of 425 · Page 1 of 22

...
21
Condonation of Delay20
Deduction17
Disallowance15

condonation of delay II Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act 4 31-Mar 23 Notice under section 148 of the Act 5 28-Apr 23 Income tax return filed in response to notice under section 148 09- June 22 (a) Notice under section 142(1) of the to 18 Oct Act dated

AMMAN GRANITE EXPORT PVT. LTD.,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3392/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2017AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. T.H. Vijayalakshmi, CIT
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Besides raising various grounds in its appeal, by filing petition for condonation of delay

PREETI MADHOK,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW -2 (5),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not

ITA 752/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.752/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs.Preeti Madhok, V. The Income Tax Officer, ‘G’ Block, Flat No.1504, Non-Corporate Ward-2(5), Metrozone (Next To Vr Mall), Chennai. No.44, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Bcopm 7655 J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

263 to substitute his view on the issue which has already been considered by the Assessing Officer. 5. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. For that without prejudice to the above, the Principal Commissioner

SHRI RAMAKRISHNAN SENTHIL KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. ACIT , NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE - 14, CHENNAI

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.754/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramakrishnan Senthil Kumar, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 80, Old No. 25, I Avenue, Income Tax, Ashok Nagar, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 14, Chennai. [Pan:Ammps5348D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 15.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Dr. Abhisek Murali, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 472 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, 2 I.T.A. No. 754/Chny/22 the assessee has filed petition for condonation

SAINULAPTHEEN KATHEEJA UMMA,KANYAKUKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, , NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 264/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.264/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 25/72, B.O.C. Street, Marthandam Ward – 2, Post, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. Tamil Nadu 629 165. [Pan:Avopk8733F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 05.05.2020 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 662 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Accordingly, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 263Section 44A

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 662 days in filing the appeal due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned

SENTHILMURUGAN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,MADURAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2,, MADURAI

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

ITA 768/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Senthil Murugan Jewellers Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., 106, 107 & 108, South Income Tax, Avani Moola Street, Madurai 625 001. Corporate Circle 2, [Pan:Aajcs8546F] Madurai 625 002. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Madurai-1, Madurai, Dated 31.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 449 days delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the form of an affidavit, the assessee has filed petition for condonation

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 263 :-6-: ITA. Nos:1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 of the Act is justified and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld. PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities along with the details contained in the appeal memorandum, and case laws relied upon. Admittedly

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 263 :-6-: ITA. Nos:1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 of the Act is justified and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld. PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities along with the details contained in the appeal memorandum, and case laws relied upon. Admittedly

LATE P.S.ULAGARAKSHAGAN,CHENNAI vs. THE PCIT-3, CHENNAI

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

ITA 249/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.249/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Late P.S. Ulagarakshagan Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Ambika U, L/H Of Ulagarakshagan, Income Tax-3, No. 4, Anushya Street, Nagarjuna Chennai – 34. Nagar, 2Nd Street, Rangarajapuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan:Aaipu8947Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai – 3, Chennai Dated 11.03.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 159(2)(b)Section 263Section 292BSection 50CSection 56

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 64 days in filing the appeal due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay 2 I.T.A. No.249/Chny/21 in filing the appeal is condoned

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

section 263 of the Act is justified and hence prayed for confirming the order of the ld. PCIT. 11. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities along with the details contained in the appeal memorandum, and case laws relied upon. Admittedly the assessee filed the return

VINAYAKA MEDICAL CARE CENTRE PVT LTD,SALEM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHNY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 90/Chny/ 2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: 22.12.2021
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 245D(4)Section 263

condonation of delay, we find that the assessee has received order passed by the learned PCIT on 15.04.2020 and the last date for filing of appeal before Tribunal was on 15.06.2020. The assessee has filed present appeal on 01.04.2021. Therefore, the Registry has intimated delay of 291 days in filing appeal. We have gone through delay noticed by the Registry

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 954/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

Section 263 as the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue were not met. In the case involving a deceased assessee, the Tribunal found the proceedings to be void ab initio as they were initiated against a dead person. The delay in filing appeals was condoned

M/S REDISOLVE SOFTWARE P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COR CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 523/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay

M/S REDISOLVE SOFTWARE P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COR CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 524/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay

REDISOLVE SOFTWARE P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 254/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay

M/S REDISOLVE SOFTWARE P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COR CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 521/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay

M/S REDISOLVE SOFTWARE P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COR CIRCLE 5 (1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 522/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 254/Chny/2016 & 521 To 524/Chny/2018 Assessment Years:2010-11, 2009-10, 10-11, 11-12, 12-13 M/S. Redisolve Software P. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 18, Cenotaph 1St Street, Alwarpet, Income Tax, Chennai 600 035. Corporate Circle 5(1)/5(2), [Pan:Aadcr3467N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. No. 254/Chny/2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax –Chennai-5, Chennai Dated 12.03.2015 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Appeals Filed By The Assessee In I.T.A. Nos. 521, 522, 523 & 524/Chny/2018 Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai Dated

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj C.A. for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 10ASection 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act. Now the CBDT by order under section 119(2)(b) of the Act dated 10.10.2022 for the assessment year 2010- 11 condoned the delay

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 959/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the appeals filed by the assessees' for adjudication.\n\nITA Nos.951 to 953/Chny/2025:\n3. The grounds raised by the assessee for A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are as follows:\n1. The order passed by the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred to as the “PCIT

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the

ITA 955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

condone delay in filing of appeals and admit the\nappeals filed by the assessees' for adjudication.\nITA Nos.951 to 953/Chny/2025:\n3. The grounds raised by the assessee for A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16\nare as follows:\n1. The order passed by the Ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax\n(hereinafter referred to as the “PCIT

VIKRAM RAM PHADKE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 105/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:105/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 2016

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A. No.105/Chny/2021 Assessment Year : 2015 - 2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] setting aside the Assessment Order, dated 29.06.2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The present appeal is accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay