← 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)

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

initiated recovery proceedings and thereafter, the appeal came to be filed on 26.10.2023 and hence, the delay of 126 days in filing appeal before CIT(A) ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. 3] The assessee that the additions made by the A.O. in the ex-parte ... which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide 5 that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to ITA No.2291/PUN/2025 [A] confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section

Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited, Lower Parel vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5338/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandaiwa Capital Markets India Acit Circle 4(1)(1), Private Limited Room No. 640, 6Th Floor, Office No. N10 & N11, 9Th Floor, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Dextrus-Peninsula Tower, Peninsula Mumbai-400 020 Corporate Park, G. K. Marg, Lower Parel, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013 Pan: Aaccd7178B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

case, and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') erred and the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ['CIT(A)'], further erred in not granting TDS credit as reflected in Annual Tax Statement (Form 26AS). Non-grant of TDS credit ... credit was ever made by the appellant. Daiwa Capital Markets India Private Limited 6.3. After the completion of scrutiny assessment, appellant preferred an appeal before CIT(A) wherein only the TP adjustments were contested. There was no ground taken in appeal by the appellant regarding any short credit

Wheels Polymers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. TDS Ward 78(4), Delhi

ITA 2832/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2024-25 Wheels Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ao, Dsm 212, Dlf Towers 15, Tds Ward 78(4), Najafgarh Road, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi – 110 015. Delhi. Pan : Aaacw0583H

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Section 194QSection 200A

seller was inoperative. Consequently, the same resulted in short deduction. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Appellant preferred an appeal before CIT(A) in search of relief. However, the CIT(A) passed an order dated 26.03.2025, confirming the demand made by the Ld. АО. On being

M/S. Oceanic Marketing Agencies India Ltd., Delhi vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

vide S. O. 3926E. Assessee writes to counsel, seeking documents relating to AY 2007-08, and enquiring into status of AY 2008-09 appeal before CIT(A). Application moved before DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai, seeking inspection of records for AY 2007-08 & AY 2008-09. Reminder sent

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad vs. Jaspal Singh Saluja, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3979/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2018-19 Acit Vs Shri Jaspal Singh Saluja 201-202, 2Nd Floor, R-7/21, New Raj Nagar, Cgo-1 Near Purani Hapur Ghaziabad- 201001 Chungi, Kamala Nehru Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agpss0863Q

For Appellant: Shri R.S Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

cash credit u/s 68 of Income Tax Act 1961. ” 4 | P a g e ACIT Vs Jaspal Singh Saluja 4. Aggrieved Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the Assessee and taking the evidences with respect to cash deposit like copy

Urmilaben Prabhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Urmilaben Prabhubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), बनाम/ 378/1/2, Nishar Faliya, Puna Surat, Room # 613, Aayakar Vs. Gam, Nr. Police Chowki, Surat Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 -395 010 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Coipp 7154 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA No.527/Srt/2025 A.Y 16-17 Urmilaben P Patel 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present

Anjana Enterprise, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 460/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.460/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anjana Enterprise Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(1), बनाम/ 306-A, Centre Point Ring Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Road, Nr.Kadhiwala School, Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahfa 6635 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Anil K. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee. Accordingly, he added Rs.13,99,980/- to the total income of assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who issued various notices as mentioned in para-5 of the appellate order. The assessee submitted that the assessee-firm is closed since

Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.357/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Laxmiben Narayan Chaute Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), बनाम/ Plot No.2, Ambica Society 2, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpc 0082 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Manish J Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.4,60,3143/-, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted

Gaurava Mishra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

reopening and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Such grounds are at serial Nos.1 and 4 of the grounds of appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has not decided the jurisdictional and legal grounds and has simply set aside the order of AO and referred the case

Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1044/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), बनाम/ S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Income-Tax Office, Anavil Business Vs. Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afypp 4446 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

before the Ld. CIT(A). In appellate proceedings, in Form- 35, it was mentioned that there was delay of 364 days in filing appeal. The CIT(A) relied on various decisions mentioned in para-5.7 to 5.10 of the appellate order and dismissed the appeal in limine. 7. Further aggrieved ... opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Considering the totality of the facts discussed above, we condone the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication on merit subject ITA No.1044/Srt/2024 A.Y 14-15 Chimanbhai B. Patel

Jamyang Khyentse Yeshi, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh vs. ACIT, DCIT, C.R. Building, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 604/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A), After Calling For A Remand Report Under Rule 46A, Recorded The Following Findings (Para 5.1 To 5.5 Of The Appellate Order):

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Prem Singh, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

lieu of credit card payments made by the appellant. Aggrieved with a total addition of Rs. 42,57,319/-, the appellant fled appeal before CIT(A) vide Form No. 35 dated 27.05.2022. 5.2 In view of the above facts, the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant were examined wherein

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1168/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1165/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1164/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Aggrieved from the additions made in the assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT (A), which are pending to be disposal. 1.3 The addition made by the Ld. A.O. includes the alleged unsecured loan taken through various persons, which were worked ... done by the assessee company. The similar finding was given, for imposing the penalty u/s 21E of the Act. 3. Appeal before CIT (A) 3.1 Aggrieved from the penalty-imposed u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate