“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

JIVANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2196/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P F Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R

only as against Rs. 1,47,511/- claimed by the assessee in his return of income. 4. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal

SOMNATH ASSOCIATES,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1293/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40

Appeal: (1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 1327 days in filing an appeal before CIT(A), and thereby dismissing the appeal of the Appellant. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. ODDIVILLE FOODS AND FROZEN, INDORE

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed\nand the order of the Ld

ITA 427/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35ASection 80

nPage 3 of 16\nOddiville Foods and Frozen\nITA No. 427/Ind/2025 – AY 2018-19\n(vi) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A).\nThe CIT(A), after being satisfied with submissions of assessee,\nreversed AO's action and directed the AO to allow deduction u/s 35AD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

ground of some statements recorded at the time of search. Against the addition made, the assessee went into appeal before CIT(A) who vide her appeal order held that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statement. In respect of additions made in respect of sale of tickets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

facts and are not applicable to the present case in hand." 7. Thus, the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed since an appeal before CIT(A) is already pending in respect of the dispute at hand and the same dispute cannot be raised before two different judicial (or quasi

ESCORTS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7394/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)

ultimately it had settled\nby paying a sum of Rs.60 lakh in financial year 2003-04, which\nwas subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) in AY AY 2016-17; 143(3)\nof the IT Act\n2004-05 and ultimately CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee,\nwhich

YASIR NISAR WANI,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/ASR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Mar 2026AY 2008-2009

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Vaseem Ahmad, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

were cancelled and I was unable to travel to India. During my visit to India much later, I came to know that my appeal before CIT(A), Amritsar had been dismissed and that the earlier order had never reached me in time. 3 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2024 Assessment Year

SURESH NATVARLAL ZINZUWADIA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Ms Rangoli Gada, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 112ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

deductions, hence no opportunity was given for LTCG adjustment. The appellant filed rectification u/s 154, but the same was rejected by CPC. Appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed. In remand proceedings, the AO made no adverse comment on cost of acquisition, and there was no difference with broker report

CISCO COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

jurisdictional preconditions being satisfied. 2. Impugned order failed to appreciate that deductibility of rebates, discount, refund liabilities and incentive is subject matter of appeal before CIT(A) as Ld. AO made disallowance of INR 83.64 Crores in final assessment order. 3. Ld. PCIT's suspicion of final order being 'erroneous

N.A.M. EXPRESSWAY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

amount of tax payable on under reported income, in consequence of misreporting thereof. 6. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee has made three fold arguments on the issue, including on the issue of vague notice issued

JORSS BULLION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4758/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 69C

order\nwas passed determining the total income of Rs. 1,28,00,000 on\n27-12-2019. The appeal before CIT(A) in relation to this addition\nis pending for disposal.\n02. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened on the basis of\nDDIT Investigation information in relation to unexplained\nexpenditure

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI vs. JORSS BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4004/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 69C

KUSUM GEORGE JACOB,BHOPAL vs. ITO - 2(1) BHOPAL, AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOSHANGABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 657/IND/2025[2012 -2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026

For Appellant: KUSUM GEORGE JACOB

Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 253(5)

proceedings by AO. Therefore, the AO\npassed assessment-order in the name of “Late Shri George Jacob, Through\nLegal Heir\". Thereafter, the first-appeal before CIT(A) as well as present\nappeal before ITAT was/is being pursued by deceased assessee's wife & legal\nheir “Kusum George Jacob”. Accordingly, the term ... after making an\naddition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in bonds.\nAggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but could\nnot make representation, hence the CIT(A) dismissed appeal of assessee and\nupheld AO's order. Now, the assessee has come

OM PRAKASH RATHI,RAJGARH vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1), UJJAIN

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 457/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

just 1 month.\nHence, the assessee was not given necessary and reasonable opportunities\ndue to which the assessee could not prosecute first-appeal before CIT(A).\n4. Ld. AR next submitted that the AO's order is also an ex-parte order in\nthe sense the AO issued a show

SHAHANSHAH DAL MILL,BHOPAL vs. ITO-5(3), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 335/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 147

Narendra Waswani” son of late \"Shri Shyam Sunder\nWaswani\" but \"Shri Narendra Waswani\" remained unaware of the appeal\npending before CIT(A) [the appeal before CIT(A) was filed on 03.11.2017\nagainst assessment-order dated 25.09.2017]. That apart, the counsel of\nassessee, CA M.K. Sharma, also expired on 13.12.2020 during

NARENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 233/IND/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

allowed exemption as claimed by assessee and there had been\nno dispute between assessee and AO at assessment stage. During\nfirst-appeal before CIT(A) also, there was no such issue raised by\nassessee. Therefore, the assessee cannot be allowed to raise this issue\nbefore ITAT for the first time ... treating\nthe impugned receipt as “VRS compensation”. The AO allowed assessee's\nclaim without any interference. During first-appeal before CIT(A) also, the\nassessee did not raise any grievance qua this receipt. Now, for the first time,\nthe assessee is raising additional grounds to accept the impugned receipt

PARIKSHIT RAMESH FUKE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) NAGPUR , NAGPUR

In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for

ITA 393/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Parikshit Ramesh Fuke, Ito, Ward-1(2), 11, Fuke Patil Marg, Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Balaji Mandir Nagpur Urban, Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440033. Nagpur, Mharashtra. [Pan: Aabpf6490J] Pin:440033. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

under section 144. The assessee could not made compliance due to nationwide lockdown. On realising the passing of assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 25th November 2021. The appeal of assessee was dismissed by learned CIT (A) on 24 April 2025. The learned CIT (A) dismissed

SUJATHA P. CLASSIK PLASTO PACKAGINGS,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD-3,, PONDICHERRY

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

ITA 4095/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varun Ranganathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

appeal are bonafide and there is reasonable cause for late filing of appeal before him. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) and also direct him to admit the issue on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remit the matter

Showing 1–20 of 1,827 · Page 1 of 92

...