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

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

274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form of affidavit to condone the delay. We have gone through the condonation petition filed in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, thereby, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned

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

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

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

274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form of affidavit to condone the delay. We have gone through the condonation petition filed in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, thereby, the delay in filing of the appeal stands 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

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

274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form of affidavit to condone the delay. We have gone through the condonation petition filed in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, thereby, the delay in filing of the appeal stands 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

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

274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form of affidavit to condone the delay. We have gone through the condonation petition filed in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, thereby, the delay in filing of the appeal stands 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

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

274 days delay. The assessee has filed petitions in the form of affidavit to condone the delay. We have gone through the condonation petition filed in the form of affidavits and find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the ld. DR has not made any serious objections, thereby, the delay in filing of the appeal stands condoned

MR. PARASMAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

condoned. We admit both the appeals for adjudication. We further find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeals on merits hence, we also proceed to hear these appeals on merit. ITA No 3303-3304/Chny/2025 (AY 2012-13, 2013-24) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) :: 5 :: 3. Brief Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual engaged

MR. PARASMAL JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

condoned. We admit both the appeals for adjudication. We further find that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeals on merits hence, we also proceed to hear these appeals on merit. ITA No 3303-3304/Chny/2025 (AY 2012-13, 2013-24) MANI SRIDHAR(Vs.) CIT (A) :: 5 :: 3. Brief Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual engaged

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

ANNAMALAI PALANIAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayannamalai Palaniappan, D.C.I.T., 35, Orur Olcott Road, 5Th Vs. Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Avenue, Besant Nagar S.O., Chennai. Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aahpp 0725 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under:  The Petitioner submits that the Assessing officer has passed an order under section143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.09.2022 whereby an 2 ITA1918/Chny/2025 Annamalai Palaniappan Vs DCIT addition to the total income of the Appellant was made to the tune

KANCHAN BAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

KANCHANA BAI CHORDIA ,CHENNAI vs. ITO CW 5(1), CHENNAI

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

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation, the first year in which the said asset was held by the previous owner would be the first year for which

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. JAYAPRIYA COMPANY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the\nCross-Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

condone the delay of `2′ days in filing of the appeal and the\nappeal filed by the Revenue is taken up for hearing on merits.\n3. Briefly stated, the facts relating to the present appeal are that, a\nsearch action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Jayapriya group on 16-\n12-2021. In the course of search

M/S PERFECT STONE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.785/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Perfect Stone Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of New No. 7, Lvr Centre, Seshadri Income Tax, National Faceless Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 006. Assessment Centre, New Delhi. [Pan:Aaacp1931G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate For Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 30.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Was Passed Under Section 143(43) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] On 23.12.2018. Since The Audit

274 r.w.s. 271B of the Act. In the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that during the relevant assessment year, the total turnover of the assessee company was at ₹.57,72,24,686/-, which is more than ₹. 1 crore and therefore, the assessee is liable to file the tax audit report in Form 3CA as required under section 44AB

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