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.

30 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 285clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka100Mumbai59Delhi53Kolkata39Hyderabad34Panaji32Chennai30Jaipur24Pune24Surat18Indore14Lucknow12Ahmedabad11Chandigarh9Bangalore8Cuttack8Raipur8Varanasi6Amritsar6Allahabad5Guwahati5Cochin5Kerala4Rajkot4Dehradun4SC3Agra2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 80I24Section 143(3)18Section 153A16Addition to Income16Section 14714Section 14A11Section 699Deduction9Section 54F

ITO WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM vs. RAJKUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2623/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2623/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Vs Mr. Rajkumar, Ward-1 17, High Road, Thirumazhisai Kanchipuram. Chennai-602 107. Pan: Aehpr 1513A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. K.Babasubramanian, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44ASection 54F

delay in filing of above appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the Revenue is admitted for adjudication. 4. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “ 1.1 The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to theLaw and facts of the case. 1.2 Though the tax effect is less than the monetary limit fixed

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

8
Disallowance8
Section 1487
Reopening of Assessment7

MOHIDEEN GAFOOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

285 days. This appeal was filed before Tribunal only on 02.03.2022 and as per Form 36, the order of CIT(A) was received on 29.03.2021. The assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the delay was due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government from 25.03.2020. The assessee has also stated that

ACIT, TRICHY vs. DHANDAPANI CEMENTS (P) LTD., TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 836/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

Delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted 3. Department has taken altogether seven grounds of which grounds 1 & 7 are general in nature needing no specific adjudication. Vide ground No.2, grievance raised by the Revenue is on 4. the deletion of an addition of "63,97,650/- made for closing stock of stores in the cement division. Facts apropos are that

DHANDAPANI CEMENTS (P) LTD.,TRICHY vs. ACIT, TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1851/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

Delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted 3. Department has taken altogether seven grounds of which grounds 1 & 7 are general in nature needing no specific adjudication. Vide ground No.2, grievance raised by the Revenue is on 4. the deletion of an addition of "63,97,650/- made for closing stock of stores in the cement division. Facts apropos are that

ACIT, TRICHY vs. DHANDAPANI CEMENTS PVT. LTD., TRICHY

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1352/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.836 & 1352/Mds/2014 & C.O. No. 54/2014 & 01/Mds/2015 (In I.T.A. Nos. 836 & 1352/Mds/2014)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Shreekanth, JCIT

Delay is condoned. Appeal is admitted 3. Department has taken altogether seven grounds of which grounds 1 & 7 are general in nature needing no specific adjudication. Vide ground No.2, grievance raised by the Revenue is on 4. the deletion of an addition of "63,97,650/- made for closing stock of stores in the cement division. Facts apropos are that

ACIT,CORPORATE CORPORATE CIRCLE -1 (1), CHENNAI vs. FL SMIDTH PRIVATE LIMITED, KANCHIPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly-allowed

ITA 1827/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, FCA &For Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

section 250 of the Income & CO No.67/CHNY/2024 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2011-12. 2. There is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer has filed petition to condone the delay and affidavit stating there in the reasons for belated filing of this appeal

P.N. PANDIAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

Section 5 r.w.s 17 r.w.s 10 of the Act and in view of the fact that the AO had not disputed the assessee’s claim of incurrence of expenditure towards rent coupled with the :-8-: ITA. Nos.:1143 to 1145 /Chny/2025 details of PF substantiated by the assessee, had directed the same to be deleted in the computation of taxable

P.N. PANDIAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1145/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

Section 5 r.w.s 17 r.w.s 10 of the Act and in view of the fact that the AO had not disputed the assessee’s claim of incurrence of expenditure towards rent coupled with the :-8-: ITA. Nos.:1143 to 1145 /Chny/2025 details of PF substantiated by the assessee, had directed the same to be deleted in the computation of taxable

P.N. PANDIAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1143 To 1145/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 P. N. Pandian, Acit, No.11/1, Mosque Colony, Vs. Central Circle -3(2), 13Th Street, Maduvankarai, Chennai. Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. [Pan: Ahppp-9266-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (&'थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N.Arjun Raj, Advocate &'थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Chennai, (In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15 & 2017-18 Both Dated 04.03.2021 & 2018-19 Dated 14.12.2020. Since Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin. C.N., C.I.T
Section 153ASection 69

Section 5 r.w.s 17 r.w.s 10 of the Act and in view of the fact that the AO had not disputed the assessee’s claim of incurrence of expenditure towards rent coupled with the :-8-: ITA. Nos.:1143 to 1145 /Chny/2025 details of PF substantiated by the assessee, had directed the same to be deleted in the computation of taxable

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. DR. GANESAN'S HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3294/Mds/2016, 1761/Mds/2017 & 1762/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Dr.Ganesan’S Hitech The Deputy Commissioner Of Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., Income Tax, No.1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aadcd7458H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepa, CAFor Respondent: 20.09.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

condoning the delay, appeal in ITA No.3294 of 2016 has become infructuous and accordingly it is dismissed. ITA No.1761 & 1762/Mds/2017 3. (i) ITA No. 1761 of 2017 for the assessment year 2012-13: The Revenue has raised three elaborate grounds in its appeal, however the crux of the issue is that “the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty

M/S MR PRATAP PUBLIC CHARIABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 432/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

285/ -and adding to the total income of the appellant for not filling the Form-10B along with the return of Income. 2.1 The Appellant had not been given an opportunity to rectify any defects in filing of the return as per Section 139(9) read with Explanation thereto. As this is a rectifiable defect u/s. 139(9), the return

S 285, VENKATACHALAPATHI PACB,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4030/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4030/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. S 285 Venkatachalapathi The Income Tax Officer, Pacb Vs. Ward 1(2), Manjulayur, Muthunackenpatty Salem Po, Omalur, Salem – 636 455. Pan: Aaeas 8632B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V Awasthy, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V Awasthy, JCIT
Section 250Section 271A

285 Venkatachalapathi The Income Tax Officer, PACB Vs. Ward 1(2), Manjulayur, Muthunackenpatty Salem PO, Omalur, Salem – 636 455. PAN: AAEAS 8632B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CA (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. V Awasthy, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3260/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

Section 80IAC, which was disallowed by the AO, CPC, and CIT(A),be granted. We also request that the delay in filing Form 10CCB be condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development of information :-3-: ITA. Nos:3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 technology based products and services

SINDHANAI ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3259/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2021-22& 2022-23 Sindhanai Artificial Intelligence The Income Tax Officer, Systems Pvt. Ltd., V. Corporate Ward6(3) New No.33/2, Old No.5/2, Chennai. Rajeshwari Apartment, 5Th Cross Street, Alagiri Nagar, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026. [Pan:Aaxcs 9635F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri J. Saravanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80I

Section 80IAC, which was disallowed by the AO, CPC, and CIT(A),be granted. We also request that the delay in filing Form 10CCB be condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of development of information :-3-: ITA. Nos:3259 & 3260/Chny/2024 technology based products and services

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. EMPEE DISTILLERIES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1380/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Vs M/S. Empee Distilleries Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ‘Empee Tower, Corporate Circle-2(1) 59, Harris Road, Pudupet, Chennai-600 034 Chennai-600 002. Pan : Aaace-1687-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Suresh Guduri, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. A.R.Karthick Lakshmanan, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Guduri, JCITFor Respondent: Mr. A.R.Karthick
Section 147

section 147 of the IT Act 1961. 2 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The appeal is filed by the Revenue with delay of four

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1631/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay. The assessee’s COs are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. We are, however, impressed by the ld. counsel’s alternate plea that the assessee could in any case support the orders appealed against (by the Revenue) on any other ground, i.e., while defending the respondents’ case. And, therefore, 3 ITA Nos. 1631-33 & 1186/Mds/2015 & COs.27-28/2016

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1186/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay. The assessee’s COs are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. We are, however, impressed by the ld. counsel’s alternate plea that the assessee could in any case support the orders appealed against (by the Revenue) on any other ground, i.e., while defending the respondents’ case. And, therefore, 3 ITA Nos. 1631-33 & 1186/Mds/2015 & COs.27-28/2016

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1633/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay. The assessee’s COs are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. We are, however, impressed by the ld. counsel’s alternate plea that the assessee could in any case support the orders appealed against (by the Revenue) on any other ground, i.e., while defending the respondents’ case. And, therefore, 3 ITA Nos. 1631-33 & 1186/Mds/2015 & COs.27-28/2016

DCIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. KALI BMH SYSTEMS PVT LTD., KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are allowed, and the assessee’s COs are dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 1632/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri T.Banusekar, C.A ""For Respondent: 02.08.2017
Section 143(3)Section 148

condoning the delay. The assessee’s COs are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. We are, however, impressed by the ld. counsel’s alternate plea that the assessee could in any case support the orders appealed against (by the Revenue) on any other ground, i.e., while defending the respondents’ case. And, therefore, 3 ITA Nos. 1631-33 & 1186/Mds/2015 & COs.27-28/2016

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ANSALDO CALDAIE BOILERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1999/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1999/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ansaldo Caldaie Boilers India Income Tax, Private Limited, New No. 45 (Old No. 45), No. 3, 3Rd Floor, Manjula Towers, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai 600 034. Ceebros Complex, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aafca0623B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 29.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2.1 The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made U/S 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Based On The Fresh Evidences Furnished By The Assessee During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, Without Affording Any Opportunity To The Ao Under Rule 46A For Verifying The Additional Evidences Submitted By The Assessee Based On Which Relief Was Given.

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

delay of one day in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 admitting NIL income and current year loss of ₹.7,87,45,865/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through