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.

435 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 67clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai435Mumbai353Delhi333Kolkata253Bangalore179Karnataka130Ahmedabad127Jaipur111Hyderabad110Pune94Chandigarh67Raipur64Indore43Rajkot40Calcutta39Surat39Amritsar36Lucknow33Cochin25Nagpur23Guwahati19Kerala17Patna16Cuttack16Telangana11Dehradun10Visakhapatnam9SC9Varanasi9Jabalpur6Allahabad4Jodhpur4Agra3Ranchi3Panaji3Orissa2Rajasthan1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income43Section 143(3)42Condonation of Delay27Section 14824Disallowance23Section 9021Limitation/Time-bar17Section 153A16Section 132

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 435 · Page 1 of 22

...
15
Section 14714
Section 14414
Section 69A12
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

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

ITA 3020/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit. Length of delay is not the matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

ITA 3018/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit. Length of delay is not the matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

VEEDIYARASAMPALAYAM POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OP PRODUCTION AND SALES SOCIETY LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS WARD,, SALEM

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

ITA 3019/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Easwar, JCIT
Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within certain limit. Length of delay is not the matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay

NOBUAKI SOTOMATSU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), CHNENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 858/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.857 & 858/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Nobuaki Sotomatsu, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.39, 2Nd Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Bcvps-2528-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate & Shri J.C. Prakash, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2023 : 01.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)

section 139 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the word “shall” has been used in the Rule 128(9) that is mandatory in nature and not directory as claimed by the Ld. AR. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and hence no interference is required

NOBUAKI SOTOMATSU INDIVIDUAL,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.857 & 858/Chny/2023 िनधा'रण वष' /Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Nobuaki Sotomatsu, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.39, 2Nd Main Road, Vs. Income Tax, R.A. Puram, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Bcvps-2528-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate & Shri J.C. Prakash, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2023 : 01.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)

section 139 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since the word “shall” has been used in the Rule 128(9) that is mandatory in nature and not directory as claimed by the Ld. AR. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and hence no interference is required

SRIYEDUVAKA KRISHNAM NAIDU,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 594/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249Section 40Section 40A(3)

67,46,841/-, aggregating to "84,33,198/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the appellate proceedings, the ld. Authorised 3. Representative raised grounds on the genuiness of expenses were the ITA No.594/Mds/2016. :- 3 -: ld. Assessing Officer has overlooked the nature and commercial expediency of business which was considered

PREETHA REDDY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 305/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.305/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Preetha Reddy, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 1A, Jhavar Plaza, Nungambakkam Income Tax High Road, Chennai 600 034. Central Circle 3(1), [Pan:Aaepr5656F] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023 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 (Central), Chennai-1, Chennai Dated 30.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 284 Days In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit By Stating As Under: “3. I State & Submit That My Case Has Been Handled By Mrs. K. Rajalakshmi Who Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & She Has Advised Me After Perusal Of The Order Of Pcit (Central), Chennai-1. She Was Of The Opinion

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. So far as merits of the case is concerned, in this case, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] dated 26.12.2019. Thereafter, on perusal of the assessment records for the assessment year 2017-18, the ld. PCIT has noticed that

BALASUBRAMANIAN SARAVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-17(7), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

67 with delay, which he suppose to upload while filing the return of income. It is to be noted that Section 90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation. 7 In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form~67 while

KELLER (M) SDN BHD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT INTL TAX 1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

condonation of delay 1 filed before the CBDT 1.1. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2018-19 5 1.2. Form 26AS of the Appellant for AY 2019-20 9 1.3. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant 13 for AY 2018-19 1.4. Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA and 3CD of the Appellant

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

CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT &FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED,PARRYS, CHENNAI vs. ACIT- CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 384/CHNY/2023[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024

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

T vs. LOGISTICS SERVICES LIMITED,MADURAIVS.DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI

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

ITA 2906/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2906/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tvs Logistics Services Ltd. Income Tax, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Corporate Circle-2 Madurai-625 002. Madurai. Pan: Aacct 1412E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1927/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Tvs Logistics Services The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-2 10,Jawahar Road, Madurai. Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. Pan: Aacct 1412E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in providing logistic service filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,71,40,470/-. The case

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, MADURAI vs. TVS LOGISTICS SERVICES LTD., MADURAI

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

ITA 1927/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2906/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tvs Logistics Services Ltd. Income Tax, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Corporate Circle-2 Madurai-625 002. Madurai. Pan: Aacct 1412E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1927/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs M/S. Tvs Logistics Services The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd. Corporate Circle-2 10,Jawahar Road, Madurai. Chokkikulam, Madurai-625 002. Pan: Aacct 1412E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Johnson, Addl.CIT
Section 14ASection 14A(2)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal filed by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. 6. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in providing logistic service filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,71,40,470/-. The case

JERRY NIRMAL FRANCIS ,CHENNAI vs. ADIT , CPC , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 846/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jerry Nirmal Francis, Assistant Director Of Income 41A, Balaji Nagar, Off V. Tax, Moogambigai Nagar, 1St Main Centralized Processing Centre, Road, Noombal, Bengaluru. Chennai – 600 077. [Pan: Aaipf-7614-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Balaji, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023

For Appellant: Shri. V. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

condone the delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: Non grant of Foreign Tax Credit ('FTC') of Rs. 36,25,781 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2280/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM vs. THRIVENI EARTHMOVERS PVT. LTD., SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2282/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 & 2283/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Thriveni Earthmovers Pvt Ltd, Of Income Tax, 22/110, Greenways Road, Central Circle, Fairlands, Salem Salem 636 016. [Pan Aabct 6759R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. M. Srinivasa Rao, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148

condone the delay of two days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these 3. appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to 4. the appeal in ITA No.2280/Chny/2018 for assessment year