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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

M/S SHRI JANANI HOMES PVT LTD,PONDICHEYYA 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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

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

condonation of delay is case and facts specific. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the position of law applicable on the given facts, I am satisfied that the appeal has not been presented within the period prescribed under section 249(2) of the Act, i.e. thirty days from the date of service

GEENA GARMENTS,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee. 17. Proceeding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, TIRUPPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING P LTD, TIRUPPUR,TAMILNADU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee. 17. Proceeding

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, , TIRUPUR vs. EASTMAN EXPORTS GLOBAL CLOTHING (P) LTD., TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/2019 & 326/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd., No. 10, 12, 2Nd Street, Kumar Income Tax, Circle 1(1), 121, Adams Buildings, 60 Feet Road, Nagar South, Tirupur 641 603. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aaccc0952E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.706/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Victus Dyeings, The Assistant Commissioner Of 410, P.N. Road, R.K. Nagar, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. Tirupur 641 601. Tirupur. [Pan: Aacfv4420D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.768/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, Income Tax, Circle 1, 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Vs. Tirupur. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. [Pan: Aacfk3053B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.358/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. K.M. Knit Wear, The Assistant Commissioner Of 14, E.F. Lakshmi Nagar, First Street, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. City Garden, Tirupur 641 602. Tirupur. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 32(1). Therefore, the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which held that the expenditure so incurred is not in the capital field, would mean that the 53 I.T.A. Nos.3326/Chny/19, 326 & 1014/Chny/24, 706, 768,358/Chny/22 & 94 & 1348Chny/23 expenditure is in the revenue field and therefore, the same, in fact, would support the case of the assessee. 17. Proceeding

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason

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

The appeals stand dismissed

5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason