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.

565 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 47clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai565Mumbai485Delhi418Kolkata271Bangalore194Ahmedabad168Karnataka151Chandigarh138Jaipur134Hyderabad126Pune124Raipur91Nagpur74Visakhapatnam69Indore64Lucknow48Calcutta44Surat37Cuttack31Rajkot30Patna25SC25Cochin18Guwahati13Telangana12Amritsar10Allahabad10Agra9Varanasi6Jodhpur5Rajasthan4Orissa3Ranchi3Panaji3Dehradun1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Jabalpur1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 148105Addition to Income50Section 143(3)49Section 14740Section 14A29Disallowance29Condonation of Delay21Section 153A20Section 40A(3)

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NCC-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1566/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197

Showing 1–20 of 565 · Page 1 of 29

...
15
Limitation/Time-bar15
Section 153C14
Section 80I13
Section 271A
Section 69A

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

JAGATHESH,CHENNAI vs. AACIT, NCC-11(1), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1565/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1565/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1566/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jagathesh, Acit, Flat 2A, Block V, Vs. Non- Corporate Circle - 11(1), Rani Meyammai Towers, Chennai. Mrc Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aclpj-4702-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 183Section 197Section 271ASection 69A

condoning the delay in filing the appeal belatedly before the Ld.CIT(A). 21. Now coming to the other issues in the case, the assessee has raised the following: 1. That no fresh tangible material was available before the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 2. That the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing

ARTHI BALIGA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, NFAC, , DELHI

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee raised 6 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. PCIT is justified in setting aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act in the given facts and circumstances

GOLDQUEST INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2283/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekantha, JCIT
Section 10(34)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 249

47,65,485/-. On perusal of the fixed assets of the company, the ld. Assessing Officer found the assessee claimed depreciation "12,50,223/-on building at Mumbai and company could not substantiate with credible evidence of operations. The assessee company disclosed in financial statements other income "29,53,756/- pertaining to dividend from shares and mutual funds exempted u/s.10

J.SRINIVASAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2065/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2065/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Mr. J.Srinivasan, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 12B, Thanikachalam Street, Income Tax, Perambur, Central Circle-3(2) Chennai-600 011. Chennai. Pan: Aovps 4456H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Durgesh Sumrott, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

47 days. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor willful but for the unavoidable reasons, therefore, he prayed that delay may be condoned in the interest of advancement of substantial justice. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing condonation of delay petition filed by the assessee submitted that the reasons given by the assessee

ABUSHA INVESTMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLP,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 7(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr.Bhabagrahi Dash, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45(1)Section 45(4)

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and the facts and circumstance of the case. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) had grossly erred in law and on facts by passing the impugned order without giving a sufficient

FAIZA HEMEED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 187/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Faiza Hameed, The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Veerabadran Street, V. International Taxation, Nungambakkam, Ward-1(2), Chennai – 600 034. Chennai. Pan: Abwph4868A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021

For Appellant: Ms. S.Vidhya, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

condonation of the delay by The CIT(A) is — The CIT(A) erred in not following the judgement of the Honourable Incometax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Sathak Ahmed Shah [Co-owner case] in ITA No. 401/CHNY/2018 dated 05-10-2018, which is in favour of the assessee.” 2.4 The order of The Honourable ITAT referred

MADURAI AGRI BUSINESS INCUBATION FORUM ,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 875/CHNY/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

condone such delay. The Hon’ble High Court has considered the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of U.P v Harish Chandra AIR 1996 SC 2173 as well as UOI v Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. 1996 taxmann.com 575 (SC). Thus, in conclusion, it was stated by Ld CIT-DR that as these old trusts have

RAJAH ANNAMALAIPURAM SRI IYYAPPASWAMI TEMPLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2865/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

47’ days in filing of appeal (ITA No.2865/Chny/2025) against the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and the assessee has filed condonation application supported by Affidavit Sworn by the Secretary, Shri R.M. Veerappan, which contents states that the assessee Temple Trust is an old Trust, enjoying 12A registration from the year 1986; and the delay in filing of appeals were

RAJAH ANNAMALAIPURAM SRI IYYAPPASWAMI TEMPLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

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

ITA 2866/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

47’ days in filing of appeal (ITA No.2865/Chny/2025) against the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(E) and the assessee has filed condonation application supported by Affidavit Sworn by the Secretary, Shri R.M. Veerappan, which contents states that the assessee Temple Trust is an old Trust, enjoying 12A registration from the year 1986; and the delay in filing of appeals were

THIDUVIL BALAKRISHNAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NONCORP, WARD 4(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 963/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkery, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 963/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thiduvil Balakrishnan, Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.3, New No. 4, V. Income-Tax, 5Th Street, 4Th Cross, Central Circle -2(2), Seetharam Nagar, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 112. [Pan: Afmpb-5184-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2023

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 40Section 56(2)(vi)Section 56(2)(vii)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) confirming the additions to the extent of 10,79,630 is erroneous, contrary to law and Sustainable to the facts of the case

MUTHUSAMY VIKNESH KUMAR,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAMAKKAL, NAMAKKAL

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024
Section 147Section 148Section 234

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in dismissing the appeal, for the reason that the assessee did not respond to the hearing notices. 2.Contents of the Grounds of Appeal ought

FOURRTS (INDIA LABS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT (OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1176/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1176/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fourrts (India) Labs Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.1, Annai Indira Nagar, V. Income Tax (Osd), Okkiyam Thoraipakkam, Corporate Range -2, Chennai – 600 097. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacf-0467-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate : Shri. P.M. Senthil Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R.S. Devaguru, Advocate
Section 115Section 32Section 35(2)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of harmless medicines, filed its return of income for assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014, declaring total income

HYUNDAI STEEL INDIA PVT LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 1528/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1528/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S.Hyundai Steel India Pvt. Ltd. 49, Sengadu Village, Income Tax, Kanchipuram-602 002. Corporate Circle-2(2) Chennai. Pan: Aabch 7074D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: 06.04.2022

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeals filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 3 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “ 1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ought to have considered the appellant

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

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

ITA 2833/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 10Section 115J

Delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 2. Revenue assails an order dated 19.09.2017 of CIT(A)-6, Chennai. Out of the three grounds taken by the Revenue, Ground Nos.1 & 3 are general needing no adjudication. Through its Ground No.2, grievance raised by the Department is on the deletion of an addition for share of loss from two firms, made

OLYMPIA TECH PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4 , CHENNAI

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.922/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 1, Sidco Income Tax, Chennai-4, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aabco8102F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai -4, Chennai, Dated 25.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80I

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee company filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 and revised return of income on 31.03.2018 admitting NIL income on both the returns. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section

SMT. RENU AGARWAL,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 10(5),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 271/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. J. Prabhakar, C.A %&For Respondent: Mr. G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 263

section 263 dated 22/3/2019, by admitting the appeal on record and disposing the case on merits of the issues involved.” I.T.A No.271/Chny/2020 :- 3 -: 3. From the above, it is clear that there is a delay in filing of the appeal on the basis of wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. In our opinion, in the affidavit the assessee

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 514/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 3. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in relation to prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/-. For this, assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. Disallowance made for prepaid finance

JCIT(OSD) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1) , CHENNAI vs. M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FIANCE COMPPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 515/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 3. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in relation to prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/-. For this, assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. Disallowance made for prepaid finance

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT-1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 847/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, CA (Through Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)

condone the delay and admit the appeal. ITA Nos.384, 514 & 515/CHNY/2023 3. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in relation to prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/-. For this, assessee has raised following grounds:- 1. Disallowance made for prepaid finance