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.

28 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 451clear

Sorted by relevance

Patna150Karnataka100Mumbai48Ahmedabad37Kolkata35Chennai28Cochin26Raipur20Delhi17Jaipur14Bangalore9Hyderabad8Chandigarh6Indore3Lucknow3Nagpur3Cuttack2Surat2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Calcutta1Jodhpur1Pune1Rajkot1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14812Section 14A10Condonation of Delay10Section 109Addition to Income9Limitation/Time-bar9Section 143(3)8Section 41(1)8Deduction

ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI vs. GENDA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2033/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

DHARMA PROMOTERS PVT LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

8
Disallowance8
Section 10(23)6
Section 13(3)6

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

ITA 2085/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

ZEYA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2513/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

DHARMA PROMOTERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 1(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2514/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

GENDA BUILDCONS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 2(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

KUGEL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE II(4), CHENNAI

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

ITA 348/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

delay in filing of appeals is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee’s are admitted for adjudication. ITA No: 2085/Chny/2014: 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That on the fact and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is not only bad in law and nature but it also whimsical hence it is liable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SRM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 41(1)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 1.3 The assessee’s grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. The order of the commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, is contrary to law, facts of the case and material on record. 2.The Commissioner of Income

SRM ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), CHENNAI

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 489/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.489/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S.Srm Engineering Construction Dcit बनाम/ Corporation Ltd. Central Circle-1(3) No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S.Srm Engineering बनाम/ Central Circle-1(3) Construction Corporation Ltd. Chennai. No.24, G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcs-5856-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri N. Balakrishnan (Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-03-2024

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Balakrishnan (CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 41(1)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 1.3 The assessee’s grounds of appeal read as under:- 1. The order of the commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, is contrary to law, facts of the case and material on record. 2.The Commissioner of Income

RAJI KANNIYAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD XI(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 565/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 112Section 31

delay of 451 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. Now coming to the merit of the appeal, Sh. N. Devanathan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that there are two grounds involved in this appeal. The first issue is with regard to disallowance of depreciation of ₹3,18,550/- on the lorry

M/S VISHNU PAPER PRODUCTS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE III(4), CHENNAI

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the assessee as well as the

ITA 830/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 4

451 days and filed condonation petition. 3. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the counsels for the assessees and the ld. DR and also perused the material available on record

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. JAKHAU SALT COMPANY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the assessee as well as the

ITA 1658/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 4

451 days and filed condonation petition. 3. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the counsels for the assessees and the ld. DR and also perused the material available on record

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. JAKHAU SALT COMPANY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the assessee as well as the

ITA 1656/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 4

451 days and filed condonation petition. 3. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the counsels for the assessees and the ld. DR and also perused the material available on record

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI vs. JAKHAU SALT COMPANY PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the assessee as well as the

ITA 1657/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 4

451 days and filed condonation petition. 3. On perusal of the condonation petition, we find that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We have heard the counsels for the assessees and the ld. DR and also perused the material available on record

DCIT, CHATRAPATTI vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2245/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

451 35% 31.03.2012 11,75,96,825 4,88,55,229 41.5% 31.03.2013 11,68,84,064 3,37,58,156 28.88% The CCIT further cited Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of “Viswesvarayya Technological University v. ACIT (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 237” has laid down that institutions generating surplus of over 15-20% cannot be said to exist

M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGG. TECHNOLOGY,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2093/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

451 35% 31.03.2012 11,75,96,825 4,88,55,229 41.5% 31.03.2013 11,68,84,064 3,37,58,156 28.88% The CCIT further cited Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of “Viswesvarayya Technological University v. ACIT (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 237” has laid down that institutions generating surplus of over 15-20% cannot be said to exist

DCIT, CHATRAPATTI vs. M/S. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA nos2092& 2093/Chny/2016

ITA 2244/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 13(3)

451 35% 31.03.2012 11,75,96,825 4,88,55,229 41.5% 31.03.2013 11,68,84,064 3,37,58,156 28.88% The CCIT further cited Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of “Viswesvarayya Technological University v. ACIT (2014) 42 Taxmann.com 237” has laid down that institutions generating surplus of over 15-20% cannot be said to exist

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNTIONAL TAXATION, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD,,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

ITA 657/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

condone delay in filing appeals by the Revenue for both assessment years and hence, Revenue are admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing computer aided design and engineering services. A TDS survey was conducted in the assessee premises on 01.02.2018 and various foreign remittances were scrutinized. During

DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION,, CHENNAI vs. M/S. PETROFAC ENGINEERING SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for both

ITA 656/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.656 & 657/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Vs M/S. Petrofac Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Services Pvt.Ltd. 7Th Floor, Block 9A Circle-2(1), International Taxation, Chennai. Dlf Infocity Sez 1/124 Shivaji Gardens, Nandambakkam Post Manapakkam, Chennai-600089. Pan: Aaecp 1211H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Ashik Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: 08.12.2021
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9

condone delay in filing appeals by the Revenue for both assessment years and hence, Revenue are admitted for hearing. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing computer aided design and engineering services. A TDS survey was conducted in the assessee premises on 01.02.2018 and various foreign remittances were scrutinized. During

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 14 , CHENNAI vs. V.V.N.VARADHAN KUMAR, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 1581/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri K. Subramanian, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250(6)

condone the delay of 48 days in filing the cross objection by the assessee and proceed to hear the appeals on merits. 3. The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.87,95,500/- made by the Ld.AO U/s.2

ITO, NCW - 12 (2),, CHENNAI vs. RAKESH SARIN AND SONS (HUF), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3110/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3110 & 3111/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Rakesh Sarin & Sons (Huf), Non Corporate Ward 12(2), Vs. No. 15/4, Masilamani Road, Balaji Chennai. Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. [Pan:Aaahr3518N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, Advocate

delay of 6 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and both the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 3. The first common ground raised in both the appeals relates to deletion of interest on debtors. By virtue of block assessment order dated 28.02.2007, various investments, such as, investment in RBI Relief Bonds, investments in UTI, IDBI, HDFC relief bonds