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.

118 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 282(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka122Chennai118Mumbai116Jaipur87Amritsar74Delhi64Panaji63Pune55Kolkata55Bangalore35Chandigarh32Hyderabad29Ahmedabad24Surat18Cochin14Cuttack13Indore12Lucknow11Rajkot11Raipur8Varanasi7Agra7Nagpur7Allahabad7Visakhapatnam6Jodhpur5Patna3Calcutta3SC2Guwahati1Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A59Section 234E40TDS34Addition to Income27Section 200A25Condonation of Delay23Section 143(3)22Section 26319Section 147

POOJA PRABHAKAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

condoned the delay, we further note that the ground of appeal relating to validity of the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 digitally signed and issued by the JAO on 01.04.2021 urged before us is predominantly legal in nature and go to the very root of the assessment proceedings. It is a settled proposition of law that where

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

16
Limitation/Time-bar13
Section 12A12
Section 12A(1)(ac)10

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

condonation of delay 1 filed before the CBDT 1.1. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2018-19 5 1.2. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2019-20 9 1.3. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant 13 for AY 2018-19 1.4. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant

K MOHAN RAJ,SALEM vs. ITO 1/ WARD 1-1, KRISHNAGIRI

Accordingly, W.P.Nos.27998 and 28000 of 2021 and W.P.(MD) No.11312 of 2021 are dismissed

ITA 1424/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1424/Chny/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 V. Mr. K. Mohan Raj, The Ito, D.No.61/10, Ward-1(1), Travellers Bungalow Road, Krn Complex East, Old Pet, K. Theatre Road, Krishnagiri-635 001. Krishnagiri-1. [Pan: Arzpm 1267 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

condone the delay and proceed with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. The only relevant grounds of appeal are Ground Nos.14 & 15, the other grounds are merely describing facts. Therefore, only Grounds No.14-15 are taken up for adjudication. 3. Ground No.14 is a legal issue that after re-opening of assessment u/s.147 of the Income

PENTA MEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2023AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1402/Chny/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Penta Media Graphics Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of ‘Taurus’, No. 25, First Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, Media Circle I, Room No. 311, 3Rd Floor, New Block, United India Colony, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaacp1647B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & : Smt. Sree Valli Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By None [Dept. Letter Submission] : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai Dated 30.03.2015 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

condone 2 I.T.A. No. 1402/Chny/2015 the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) dated 30.03.2015, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act of an amount of Rs.13

DCIT, TRICHY vs. THE PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PUDUKKOTTAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1198/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathianarayanan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

condone the delay and proceed for adjudication of the appeal on merits. 3. The Ld. CIT-DR, referring to various judicial decisions, assailed the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the deduction could be allowed only to the extent of provisions made in the books of accounts and not beyond

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

Delay condoned. 2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

Delay condoned. 2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

Delay condoned. 2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

MOHANRAJ,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, COIMBATORE

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

Delay condoned. 2. We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application stands disposed of. 9. Similar is the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Pearl Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1042/Chny/2023 dated 03-06-2024). The bench, under similar circumstances, held that the ratio of decision

ACIT CIRCLE 1, TRICHY vs. DALMIA BHARAT LTD., TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed

ITA 3156/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. M/S. Dalmia Dalmia Bharat Bharat Trichy Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu - Ltd.,Dalmiapuram, Tamilnadu 621 651, Pan/Gir No.Aajcs 7366 K Aajcs 7366 K (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : N O N E Revenue By : Dr S.Palanikumar, Cit (Dr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/3/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Dr S.Palanikumar, CIT (DR
Section 14A

condone the delay P a g e 1 | 17 Assessment Year : 2014-15 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The sole grievance of the revenue in this appeal is that the ld CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to compute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) after excluding investment

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2540/CHNY/2019[2009-10 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2545/CHNY/2019[2011-12 (26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2546/CHNY/2019[2011-12 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2541/CHNY/2019[2010-11 (26q-q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2542/CHNY/2019[2010-11 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2544/CHNY/2019[2010-11 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. BHARATHI RAJAA HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD.,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2543/CHNY/2019[2010-11 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

section 282 of the Act. (2) The date of posting of any communication under sub-paragraph (1) in the electronic mail or electronic account of the deductor in the portal of the Cell shall be deemed to be the date of service of such communication. (3) The intimation, orders and notices shall be computer generated and need not carry physical

M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD.,,THIRUMAZHISAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2984/CHNY/2019[2015-16 (26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200A

1) to section 282 of the Act. In this case, the Revenue has not brought to our notice any such communication with the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the reasons canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient on this count also and hence, we condone

M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD.,,THIRUMAZHISAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2982/CHNY/2019[2015-16 (24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200A

1) to section 282 of the Act. In this case, the Revenue has not brought to our notice any such communication with the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the reasons canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient on this count also and hence, we condone

M/S. THIRUMURUGAN PLASTICS P. LTD.,,THIRUMAZHISAI vs. ACIT, CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2019[2014-15 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 200A

1) to section 282 of the Act. In this case, the Revenue has not brought to our notice any such communication with the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the reasons canvassed by the assessee towards the delay in filing the impugned appeals appears reasonable and sufficient on this count also and hence, we condone