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.

44 results for “house property”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai104Bangalore101Delhi52Chennai44Kolkata18Ahmedabad14Hyderabad9Amritsar7Raipur4Jaipur4Visakhapatnam3Rajkot3Jodhpur1Karnataka1Dehradun1Cochin1Patna1Chandigarh1Agra1SC1Surat1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 4042Section 10B42Disallowance32Deduction31Section 19528Section 528TDS26Addition to Income25Section 194H24Section 201(1)

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2804/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

18
Section 314
Section 194J12

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 376/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 377/CHNY/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 1644/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 754/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1414/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

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

ITA 755/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE SOUTH LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO TDS, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1415/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate
Section 131Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

194J r.w.s Explanation 2 to (vii) of section 9 is a special provision in the Act defining technical services, it will override the general reference to supply of labour for carrying out any work contained in Section 194C of the Act. Further, on facts also it was seen in the assessee's case that personnel for performing front office, managerial

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 564/CHNY/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT, IRS
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

194J of the Act would not be applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the Assessee respectfully submits that the payments made towards supply of manpower is in the nature of 'supply of labour for carrying out work' as envisaged under Section 194C of the Act and tax has been appropriately deducted under Section 194C Of the Act. Further, the explanation

VODAFONE CELLULAR LIMITED,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 565/CHNY/2015[2014-15 (upto Sep 2014)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.564 & 565/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-2015 Vodafone Cellular Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.1045-1046, Income Tax, Avinashi Road, Tds Circle, Coimbatore 641 018 Coimbatore [Pan Aaacb 8614L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT, IRS
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 9

194J of the Act would not be applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the Assessee respectfully submits that the payments made towards supply of manpower is in the nature of 'supply of labour for carrying out work' as envisaged under Section 194C of the Act and tax has been appropriately deducted under Section 194C Of the Act. Further, the explanation

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1331/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1330/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1328/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected

MANIMEGALAI GANESAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP RANGE 10, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1329/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1328, 1329, 1330 & 1331/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Smt. Manimegalai Ganesan, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 010. Non Corporate Range 10, [Pan: Aaepm4356K] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri C. Subramanian, C.A. : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Ms. R. Anita, Jcit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 15.07.2021 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai, All Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Common Grounds For Adjudication: 1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 In Confirming The Additions Is Against The Weight Of Evidence & Probabilities Of The Case. 2. Ground 1-Disallowance Of Commission Paid To Dr.S.P.Ganesan

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 69C

House Pvt Ltd 117 ITR 569 • Gujarat High Court in the case of Coronation Flour Mills Vs ACIT 314 ITR 1 Delhi High Court in the case of Hive Communications Pvt Ltd 12 Taxmann 287. 1.7. The appellant submits that the assessing officer is incorrect in making the addition U/s. 40a(ia) of the Act as the payee had reflected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. SURYANARAYANA IYER, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1491/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Acit, Ncc-19(1), Mr. Suryanarayana Iyer, Chennai. Old No.3, New No.5, Third Street, Nehru Colony, Nanganallur, Chennai-600 061. [Pan: Aztps 0939 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini KarthikFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT
Section 194J

property and other source; and he filed his return of income (RoI) for AY 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 admitting taxable income of Rs.51,14,000/-. Later, the RoI was selected for scrutiny and the AO noted that the assessee had entered into an agreement with M/s.Lexis Nexis Butterworths India (hereinafter in short “M/s. Lexis Nexis

JAYARAMAN RANGAN, ,CHENNAI vs. ACOT, NCC - 1 (1),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 1770/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1770/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Jayaram Rangan Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Fichtner Consulting Engineers Pvt.Ltd Income Tax, Menon Eternity-9Th Floor Non-Corporate Circle-1(1), 165, St.Maris Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600034. Chennai-600 018. Pan:Aakpj 3300N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson,Addl. CITFor Respondent: 09.03.2022
Section 194JSection 44A

house property, income from profession and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the 3 assessee derives consultancy income from M/s. Fichtner Consulting Engineers (India) P.Ltd. and sitting fees from M/s. Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd. The assessee has treated consultancy fees and sitting fees received from two companies as his professional income

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

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

ITA 482/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., The Dcit, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Ltu-Ii, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 32Section 35

house facility and development facility, and therefore, in the absence of any requirement of law, the AO erred in curtailing the expenditure and consequent weighted deduction claimed by assessee. Therefore, the non-approval of the expenditure by the DSIR doesn’t disentitle the assessee to make the claim of Rs.14,20,60,668/- in the relevant year under consideration

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 8(1) - LTU - II, CHENNAI

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

ITA 361/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.361/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., The Dcit, No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Non Corporate Circle-8(1), Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Ltu-Ii, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca 4651 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 32Section 35

house facility and development facility, and therefore, in the absence of any requirement of law, the AO erred in curtailing the expenditure and consequent weighted deduction claimed by assessee. Therefore, the non-approval of the expenditure by the DSIR doesn’t disentitle the assessee to make the claim of Rs.14,20,60,668/- in the relevant year under consideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

House, 2nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [PAN: AABCC 6633 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, FCA Department by : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 22.01.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue Appeal for AY 2012-13 stands dismissed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep BagmarFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 2Section 37(1)

House, 2nd Floor, Chennai. No.2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. [PAN: AABCC 6633 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate; Mr. Balachandar, FCA Department by : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 22.01.2025 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 19.03.2025 ITA No.1282, 1283 to 1285/Chny/2024