Case LawHigh Court › The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax...

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited

High Court 25 Sep 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited
Date of order
25 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1,Chennai-600 034 v. The Electronics Corporation Of Tamilnadu Limited, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

T.C.A.No.186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.09.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICEAND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN T.C.A.No.186 of 2025 The Principal Commissioner of Income tax-1,Chennai-600 034. Appellant Vs The Electronics Corporation of Tamilnadu Limited,No.692, MHU Complex, 2[nd] Floor, Anna Salai,Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. Respondent PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 20.09.024 in ITA No.95/Chny/2024. ______________ Page 1 of 4 For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar JUDGMENT (Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard on admission. 2. The first question of law, as proposed by the Revenue, is with regard to the correctness of the view taken by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal. 3. The Tribunal has considered the cause shown by the Revenue and has arrived at a conclusion on fact that no sufficient cause was shown. Even after excluding the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 (due to Covid-19 pandemic), the appeal was barred by 503 days, as it was filed on 12.1.2024. 4. As no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay, the proposed first question of law does not survive. Consequently, ______________ Page 2 of 4 there is no need to consider the second proposed question of law. 5. Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 25.09.2025 Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/Nobbr To: 1. The Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai Benches, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-600 034. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporation Circle 2(1), Chennai. Corporation Circle 2(1), Chennai. ______________ Page 3 of 4 ______________ Page 4 of 4 T.C.A.No.186 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE ANDG.ARUL MURUGAN,J. bbr T.C.A.No.186 of 2025 25.09.2025
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan