M/S. SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S. SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S SHRI JAJANI HOMES,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT-CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M//S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPS,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S SHRI JANAI HOMES PVT. LTD,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S. SHIR JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT,COC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.620 To 627/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.628 To 633/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.634 To 638/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2015-16) && आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Chny/2021 (िनधाCरण वषC / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Shri Janani Homes Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ No.9, Second Cross, Mugambigai Nagar, Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Vs. Reddiyar Palayam, Pondicherry – 605 010. Ghaziabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./Pan/Tan Aancs-4620-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman (Ca)-Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson (Addl. Cit) –Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 31-03-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 31-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement

35. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned at Column 15 thereof. The reasons for delay are stated therein as under:- 1) That we are assessed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Puducherry in the status of company for the Assessment year 2013-14. That we prefer an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal f

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

delay and therefore, the same is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. condoned and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 4. The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is against the The sole grievance of the Revenue in this appeal

HEENA G JAIN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2058/Chny/2025 िनधा7रण वष7 /Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 5. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of Heena G. Jain :- 10 -: all relevant facts and it is at this stage the diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration.” (emphasis supplied) 23. On the facts and in the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondent beneficiary was not diligent

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,ULUNDURPET,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. 0DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls