← 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)

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward - 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1254/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

determined at Rs.1,29,05,961/- as against returned income of Rs.6,16,050/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) issued three notices fixing the hearings on 17.09.2024, 24.09.2024 and 27.09.2024; but, the appellant did not file any written ... details. Hence, the CIT(A) decided the appeal based on the information available on record including the statements of facts and grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal before him. As the assessee failed to comply with any of the notices

Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod, Mahuva vs. NFAC, Delhi Current Jurisdiction - ITO Ward 1, Bardoli

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

ITA 1253/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1253 To 1255/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashokkumar Bhulabhai Rathod Nfac, Delhi Current Opp. Reliance Tower, Vs Jurisdiction-Income Tax Officer, Karcheliya, Mahuva-394 240 . Ward No.1, Bardoli, Income-Tax Office, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Jalaram Temple, Station Road, Bardoli- 394 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abxpr 3858 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Neerja Sharma, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) All Dated 30.09.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac),Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, ‘Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.05.2023, 18.05.2023 & 19.05.2023. Since Facts Are Same Except Variance Of Amounts, With Consent Of The Parties, The Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

determined at Rs.1,29,05,961/- as against returned income of Rs.6,16,050/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) issued three notices fixing the hearings on 17.09.2024, 24.09.2024 and 27.09.2024; but, the appellant did not file any written ... details. Hence, the CIT(A) decided the appeal based on the information available on record including the statements of facts and grounds of appeal. The CIT(A) condoned the delay of 129 days in filing the appeal before him. As the assessee failed to comply with any of the notices

Rinki Shashikant Gandhi, Vadodara vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2003/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

including the failure to provide proper reasons for reopening or to provide a clear basis for such action. Further, upon filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals), the CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal. The appellant should be given an opportunity to examine the reasons recorded ... immovable property and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the reopening u/s. 148 does not meet the requirement

The Uttar Gujarat Muslim Education Society, Visnagar, Mehsana vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exempt), Palanpur

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

ITA 291/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

which was rejected by the AO vide order dated 22.04.2022, disallowing the capital expenditure claim made by the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A), who upheld the AO’s decision with the following observations: “5.3 On careful perusal of schedule-EC, filed along with the return

Bhoop Singh Poonia, Nohar vs. ITO Ward, Nohar

ITA 405/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jun 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.S.Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)

with a delay of 201 days). The appeal No. is ITA 405/JODH/2024. 3. That at the time of filing of appeal before CIT(Appeals), the email address mentioned in Form No. 35 for communication was KUKIVINAY@YAHOO.COM NFAC. 4. That CIT (Appeals) issued 3 hearing notices ... from the officials of Income Tax Department regarding the payment of outstanding demand. 7. That then appellant informed them that he was in appeal before CIT(Appeals) and they informed appellant that your appeal was dismissed by CIT(Appeals). 8. That appellant called his counsel regarding the status of appeal

A.G.T. Electronics Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2767/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 44A

made addition of unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and also addition of bank interest. The assessee instead of filing of appeal before CIT(A) against this assessment order, preferred revision petition u/s.264 of the Act dated 11.06.2016 and the revision petition was considered by PCIT and dismissed vide order ... dated 28.03.2018 in C.No.9127/2/PCIT/PDY/264/2017-18. 4. Consequent to dismissal of revision petition by PCIT dated 28.03.2018, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) in Form No.35 on 05.08.2018 with a delay of almost 2½ years. The assessee before CIT(A) explained the cause of delay and the CIT(A) noted

Ajay Paharia HUF, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1186/MUM/2025[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 250

SANDEEP GOSAIN (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A) 41, Mumbai/10431/2016-17 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income ... parties. Subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed upon the assessee for remaining 4 Ajay Paharia HUF negligent in pursuing the appeal before CIT(A) and also for filing the appeal before the bench after the prescribed period of limitation. The said amount shall be deposited in the Prime Minister

Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia, Nagpur vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income (Central) Circle - 1(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

Aggrieved by the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act passed by the AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). xvi. CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the asseseee and confirmed the addition made by AO. 4 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 2. QUESTION RELATING

Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward (197)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 372/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ito Ward –(197)(6) Ltd. Cpc Bangaluru, L.J. Road Mahim, Vs. 560500. Mumbai-400016. Pan: Aaaat9842L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2024, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Addl/Jcit (A) (In Short Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In This Case, The Intimation/Order U/S. 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On Dated 20.05.2015 By The Ito Ward-(197) (6) Mumbai, Whereby The Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S. 80(2)(D) Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 7,36,459/- Earned On Its Investment & Saving Bank Account Maintained With Saraswat Co-Operative Bank & The Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Was Disallowed. The Assessee Against The Said Intimation Dated 20.05.2015 Filed A Rectification Application U/S. 154 Of The Act, However, No Order For Rectification Has Ever Been Passed By The Cpc. The Assessee On Realizing Its 2 M/S. Jagruti Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Mistake Challenged The Said Intimation U/S. 143(1) Dated 25.05.2025 By Filing First Appeal On Dated 12.06.2024 But With The Delay Of More Than 9 Years. The Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner By Considering The Peculiar Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ultimately Declined To Entertain The Request For Condonation Of Delay & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine Without Making Any Discussion On Merit Or On Any Other Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. D.R
Section 14Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

peruse the relevant material based on record. First of all, the Assessee has explained the reason for delay in filing of the first appeal before CIT(A) that earlier CA of the Assessee had filed rectification application u/154 before the AO/CPC, then Assessee was under bonafide belief that the adjustment

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1038/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1037/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, बनाम / Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Vs. Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. ITO, Daman

ITA 1036/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For Different Years Are As Under:

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel, Daman vs. Income Tax Officer, Daman

ITA 1035/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Jun 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1035-1038/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Chanchalben Dahyabhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-Daman, 40, A.Dabhel Ghelwad Faila, Vs. Jeevanji Hotel Building, Kathiria, Nani, Daman-396 210 Devka Road, Nani Daman-396 210 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aljpp 3816 D (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Chandra Jha, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement | 09/06/2025 आदेश / Order Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Four Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From Separate Orders Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, “Nfac/Cit(E)”] All Dated 13.08.2024, For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Which In Turn Arose Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao') U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 26.12.2018, 25.03.2022 & 28.03.2022 Respectively. In All The Appeals, The Facts Are Common & Grounds Of Appeals Raised By The Assessee Are Similar Except Variance Of Amounts. Hence, With The Consent Of The Parties, All The Appeals Were Clubbed & Heard Together & Are Decided By This Consolidated Order For Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vaishali Developers & Builders, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 816/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M.Joshivaishali Developers & Income Tax Officer-1(2), बनाम/ Builders, Bhopal Vs. 240 Mp Nagar Zone-I, Bhopal (Pan:Aacfv7638P) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

passed fresh assessment-order dated 25.02.2016 again denying the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) to assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee went in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before ITAT. Accordingly, this is 2nd round before

Arvindbhai Punabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1998/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

income was assessed at Rs.17,08,35,735/-, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were separately initiated. 4. | The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appellate proceedings were conducted through electronic platform. The assessee filed initial written submissions on 22.04.2021 and reiterated them on 25.08.2023, asserting that

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

22ndDecember 2019. Aggrieved by the penalty order under section 270A of the Act passed by the AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under; 6. This order addresses the appeal filed by Sh. Lokesh Sachdeva (hereinafter referred

Fcl Gahu Kamgar Sahkari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Manmad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 1067/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1067/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Fcl Gahu Komgar Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-1, Malegaon. New Hall, Food Corporation Of India, Tal Nangaon, Manmad. Maharashtra – 423104. Pan: Aaaaf1271D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.02.2025 For The A.Y.2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 70Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 81

circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay caused in failing an appeal before CIT(A). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting assessee

Smt. Santosh Devi, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Behror

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

ITA 372/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 69A

account of unexplained deposit in the bank account. 3 SMT. SANTOSH DEVI VS ITO, WARD-BEHROR 3. My consultant has filed the appeal before CIT(A) on 07.02.2020. In Form No.35 the e-t address at which notice may be sent is mentioned as ykamlesh97@gmail.com. 4. From the income

Monarch Corporation, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 725/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.725/Srt/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Monarch Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ F.P. 40, T.P. 10, Beside Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat/Assistant Vs. Kalpvrukh Garden, Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gauravpath Pal, Surat-394230 Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazfm 1036 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Hiren M. Diwan, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

determined at Rs.99,93,672/- as against returned income of Rs.85,30,940/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that AO has rightly reclassified the income of Rs.98,00,000/- as income from other sources and correctly taxed

Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 110/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 109 & 110/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel on behalf of Shri Parin Shah A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

110/Ahd/2025 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., A.Y. 2017-18 & 2021-22 4. Aggrieved by the same assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the on the ground of delay. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed