← All Phrases

“appeal before CIT(A)”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A1,827 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before CIT(A) is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before CIT(A)

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court
659
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
199 ITR 351 · 1993 · High Court
441
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider additional grounds for deduction, even if not originally claimed before the Assessing Officer or Appellate Assistant Commissioner, provided the facts are not disputed and it pertains to a legal claim for correct tax liability. This is because the purpose of an appeal is to ascertain the correct tax liability.

CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate
53 ITR 225 · 1964 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) holds plenary powers when disposing of an appeal, with their scope being coterminous with the Assessing Officer. This allows the CIT(A) to exercise all powers of the AO, including admitting additional evidence and redetermining income.

New Diwan Oil Mills v. CIT
296 ITR 495 · 2008 · High Court
351
citing judgments

The High Court can return a reference unanswered if the assessee fails to appear or provide assistance. This illustrates the broader principle that appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss appeals for non-prosecution when a party does not effectively pursue their case.

Judgments citing appeal before CIT(A)

Sree Ramakrishna Prema Bihar, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward 1(3), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1986/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

Section 12ASection 250

exparte by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 2315 days. After perusing the facts in the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income

Sree Ramakrishna Prema Bihar, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption) Ward 1(3), Kolkata

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1985/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income qua the application of funds which inadvertently shown in the wrong column while punching the return of income online. Consequently, the AO-CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be well served if the issue is restored to the file of JAO with the direction to decide the sam

Section 12ASection 250

exparte by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal of 2315 days. After perusing the facts in the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). We observe that the assessee is a trust duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and has claimed deduction from gross income

Infinite Expeditions Pvt. Ltd., Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 6968/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Infinite Expeditions Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(1), B.K. Complex, S-3, Opp. Krishna Vs Ghaziabad. Kunj Colony, Tibra Road, Modinagar, Income Tax Building, Cgo Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201204 Complex-1, Purani Hapur Chungi, [Pan: Aaeci0872M] Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Lakshay Gupta, Ca Revenue By Shri Virendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 31.10.2025 Date Of Hearing 01.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)Section 68

same under section 115BBE in the assessment order dated 28.02.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The assessee raised ground of appeal that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given. The assessee also challenged the additions on merit. The assessee

Star Delta Transformers Ltd, Govindpura Bhopal vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), Aaykar Bhawan

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

account of unexplained cash and (ii) Rs. 2,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained stock. (ii) Against assessment-order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) whereupon the CIT(A) granted substantial relief and after CIT(A)’s order, there survived only these additions ... offered by assessee in 17,00,000/- the return of income Total 23,58,643/- (iv) Against penalty-order, the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come before ITAT assailing the orders of lower-authorities

Income Tax Office, Civic Center New Delhi vs. Shalini Chaudhary Sharma, India

ITA 958/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148

erred in not appreciating the fact that during the assessment the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act never challenged (g) The appeal before CIT(A) was filed by Legal Heir appointed by order of Delhi High Court vide order dated 30.01.2017. However, Id. CIT(A) has erred

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2981/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2980/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2978/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2977/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2976/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2975/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978, 2979, 2980 & 2981/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2019-20, 2018-19, 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Indian Overseas Bank, The Deputy Commissioner 763, Anna Salai, Vs. Of Income Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Non-Corporate Circle 8, Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 1223J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143Section 246Section 246ASection 250

authorities as enumerated under Section 246A of the Act. 6.3 As appeal filed by the appellant is not an appealable order u/s.246A, an appeal before CIT(A) against order giving appeal effect of an order already passed by CIT(A) is not maintainable under the Income Tax Act. The appellant

Chirag Chandrakant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. As my consultant CA Bipinchandra Pandya not doing the appeal work so mandate for filing an appeal before CIT(A) against the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 dated 13.03.2025 was assigned to CA Sailesh Doshi on recommendation of CA Bipinchandra Pandya. c) Thereafter

Spectris Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3563/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Spectris Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit Ltd., 201-B, Second Floor, New Delhi Park Centra, Sector -30 Gurgaon Pan No. Aagcs6654R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Priya Goel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.12.2025 Order Per C.N. Prasad, Jm, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -20, New Delhi Vide Order Dated 27.03.2014 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xx, New Delhi ("Cit(A)") Is Bad In Law.

Section 234BSection 92Section 92C

being aggrieved by the adjustment proposed by the TPO and made by the AO, the appellant filed an appeal before CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 27th March, 2014 the CIT(A) has upheld the adjustment made by the TPO for reasons recorded at paras 5.6 to 5.11 (refer pages

Anil Bhawani, Indore vs. ITO - 5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 505/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 68

assessee from transactions of shares and thereby assessing total income at Rs. 1,28,28,210/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. The assessee Carried matter in next appeal to ITAT, Indore bench in ITA No. 487/|Ind/2019 wherein

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Race Course Cirlce vs. Epigral Limited, Narmada

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1206/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Rs.1,88,37,071/- for the present assessment year and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A), who held that the principle of res judicata is not applicable in tax cases. However deleted the additions made

Hincon Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2961/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainhincon Holdings Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward 15(2)(1) Hincon House, Lbs Marg Mumbai. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai – 400 083 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2592M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45

selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, assessment was carried out. AO made disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of IT Act. 1.2 The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Ld CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order. Confirmed the disallowance made

ACIT, Circle-2, Noida vs. Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6732/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

claimed in the return of income. The assessee filed application under section 154 for rectification, but the same was dismissed. However, on further appeal before CIT(A)-1, Noida, the claim of deduction under section 80AB of Rs.13.96 Crore was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2016. Copy of intimation under section ... deduction under section 80AB was not allowable. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed deduction under section 80IB of Rs.13.96 Crores. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld vide order dated 09.01.2018. Resultantly, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6541/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

claimed in the return of income. The assessee filed application under section 154 for rectification, but the same was dismissed. However, on further appeal before CIT(A)-1, Noida, the claim of deduction under section 80AB of Rs.13.96 Crore was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2016. Copy of intimation under section ... deduction under section 80AB was not allowable. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed deduction under section 80IB of Rs.13.96 Crores. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld vide order dated 09.01.2018. Resultantly, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

In the result, the assessing officer is directed to allow both the disallowances

ITA 6540/DEL/2018[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6540/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 (Physical Hearing) Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Circle-2, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, A-Block, Sector-24, Pan No.Aaaln0639A Noida, Uttar Pradesh. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6541/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, बनाम Dcit,Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Vs. Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6732/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Acit, बनाम Noida Special Economic Zone Authority, Circle-2, Phase-Ii, Dadri Road, Noida, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, 2D, Uttar Pradesh. A-Block, Sector-24, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Aaaln0639A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Ram Avtar Sharma, Ca & Shri Bhupesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 34Section 80ASection 80I

claimed in the return of income. The assessee filed application under section 154 for rectification, but the same was dismissed. However, on further appeal before CIT(A)-1, Noida, the claim of deduction under section 80AB of Rs.13.96 Crore was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2016. Copy of intimation under section ... deduction under section 80AB was not allowable. The Assessing Officer while passing assessment order disallowed deduction under section 80IB of Rs.13.96 Crores. On appeal before CIT(A), the action of the Assessing Officer was upheld vide order dated 09.01.2018. Resultantly, the assessee has approached this Tribunal