← 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)

Bhagwan Bhairu Badre, Mumbai vs. Ward 42(1)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

ITA 1692/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the City Civil Court, which passed its order on 27.12.2011 2.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin SolankiFor Respondent: Shri Akhatar Hussain Ansari
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

hands of the Assessee by invoking provisions contained in Section 50C of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), which was dismissed vide order dated 09/01/2025. 6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced

Amita Dutta, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Thane

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1229/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 46ASection 69

raised the following grounds of appeal: “ 1 The order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A) NFAC) is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred ... parties and have gone through the lower authorities carefully. I find that assessment was completed u/s. 144 on 04.12.2018. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 21.07.2020. on perusal of Form 35, I find that assessee in column 11 of Form 35, the assessee clearly stated about the change

Rahul Coal India Private Limited, Surat vs. ITO TDS-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1220/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Rahul Coal India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Addl. Cit (Tds), 429-432 Golden Point, Ring Road, Surat, Nr. Bsnl Office, Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcr1044D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 133ASection 201(1)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)

penalty of Rs.87,750/- u/s 271CA of the Act vide order dated 25.02.2022. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), assessee made detailed submission, which is at para 3 in pages 2 to 7 of the order of CIT

Ritika Jain, Thane vs. ITO(It Tp), Bhopal, Aaykar Bhavan

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 632/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshiritika Jain, Cit (Appeals), बना A-504, Laxmi Residency Chs Nfac, म/ Ltd, Delhi Vs. Opposite Datta Mandir Check Naka, Wagle Estate, Thane

Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 253

assessee has filed return of income and thereafter, the Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings and passed reassessment order. Therefore, for filing the appeal before CIT(A) the question of payment of advance tax by the assessee as per clause(b) of Sub Section 4 of Section 249 does

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

levied by Ld. A.O. u/s 271 (1) (c). Order of CIT (A) 10 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against said penalty order and in course of hearing filed written submissions which reproduced in appeal order of CIT(A). The Ld. CIT

Kerala Catholic Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 945/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Kerala Catholic V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(4), Association बिधम Mumbai Kca Bhavan, St. Francis Of Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Asis International School, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te P.L. Lokhande Marg, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Chembur, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400043 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk3121E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 11(2)(c) r.w.s. 13(9) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The assessee did not make any compliance before Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons stated in Para 3 hereinbefore, and therefore, Ld. CIT

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Reliance Industries Ltd., Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor Maker Chamber Iv, Aayakar Bhavan, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, S.O. Lines, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacr 5055 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 144BSection 144CSection 147Section 801B(9)

first year of claim of deduction/u/s.10AA being AY 2010-11. The order of AO for AYs.2011-12 to 2013-14 were subject to appeal before CIT(A) as well as ITAT. The claim of deduction u/s. 10AA considering AY.2010-11 being the first year has attained finality after the order

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 42/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain group, Shri Dharmichand Jain group and Shri Sanjay Chaudhary group. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. On further appeal, the ITAT, Surat vide order dated 13.12.2022 sustained addition @ 6% of total purchase of Rs.9 ... being minimum penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) where appellant raised three grounds including validity of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and merit of the penalty

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain group, Shri Dharmichand Jain group and Shri Sanjay Chaudhary group. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. On further appeal, the ITAT, Surat vide order dated 13.12.2022 sustained addition @ 6% of total purchase of Rs.9 ... being minimum penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) where appellant raised three grounds including validity of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and merit of the penalty

Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Surat vs. ITO 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.40 To 42/Srt/2024 Assessment Years:(2011-12 To 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Vimal Chand Gokharoo, Vs. The Ito, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World, Ward – 3(3)(1), Kamala Mills, Compound, Senapati Surat Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acupj0819L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Jayshree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concerns of Shri Rajendra Jain group, Shri Dharmichand Jain group and Shri Sanjay Chaudhary group. On appeal, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. On further appeal, the ITAT, Surat vide order dated 13.12.2022 sustained addition @ 6% of total purchase of Rs.9 ... being minimum penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) where appellant raised three grounds including validity of the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and merit of the penalty

Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 19/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindbhai Ramniklal Raval Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ (Huf)308, Chhapania Street, 1(3)(6), Surat, Room No.303, 3Rd Vs. Adajan, Surat-395 009 Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeha 1847 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 250Section 54F

computed at Rs.1,61,68,720/- as against returned income of Rs.2,28,680/-. Aggrieved by the addition made by AO, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3. Before CIT(A), the appellant submitted that appellant had duly invested Rs.1,59,40,044/- u/s 54F of the Act in purchase

Prakash Mandhwani, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), NFAC

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 873/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)

determining total income at Rs. 87,41,142/- after making certain additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first- appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s first-appeal in limine as un-admitted finding the same as delayed and not filed within the statutory time period ... undisputed basic data i.e. the assessment- order was passed on 23.03.2016; the same was served upon assessee on 02.04.2016; the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A) on 13.06.2016. Then, he drew us to Para 3 of impugned order wherein the CIT(A) has computed “01.05.2016” as last date

Chanchal Nalwaya, Indore vs. ITO 3(3), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 296/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2013-14 Smt. Chanchal Nalwaya Ito Ward 3(3) (Wife Of Shri Anand Nalwaya) Indore 8, Lig Duplex, Patnipura, बनाम/ Behind Anoop Talkies Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Atppc5834Q Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari & Ms. Priyal Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 12.12.2018 re- determining total income at Rs. 83,97,530/-. Aggrieved by order of fresh assessment, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get any relief. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us assailing the order of CIT

Somani Realty, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 22(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1245/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 254(1)Section 801Section 801BSection 80I

parte order. The assessment was completed during severe COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, there was no proper communication due to lockdown. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). As per order of CIT(A), two notice dated 04.01.2024 and 19.07.2024 was issued. No such notice was received by the assessee. Thus

Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Boda, Rajkot vs. Addl/JCIT (Appeals), Udaipur, Rajkot

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

ITA 76/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.76/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pravinbhai Bhimjibhai Boda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No. 286, St. No. 2, Wd1(1)(5), Karmabhumi, Janak Society, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Course, Sadhuvasvani Road, Rajkot-360005 Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Apapb2470G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parth Dasani Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee and set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the assessing officer with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material to the PRAVINBHAI

Maheshbhai Vasrambhai Pansuriya, Rajkot vs. ITO WD 3(1)(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 130/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.130/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Maheshbhai Vasrambhai Pansuriya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Jay Khodiyar Stone, Aaykar Bhawan, Vatika, Kailashpati Soc, Dhebar Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360002 (Gujarat)

For Appellant: Shri Anil G. Kothiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 147

assessee and set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the assessing officer with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material to the satisfaction

Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1446/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1446/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vimal Coal Pvt.Ltd. The Dy.Cit 503, Addpr Aspire बनाम / Circle-4(1)(1) Near Jahanvee Restaurant V/S. Ahmedabad University Road To Panjrapole Road (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Ahmedabad - 380 009 (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabcv 4259 J Assessee By: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, Ar On Behalf Of Shri Sunil Maloo, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 10.06.2024 For The

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Sajnani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 135Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)Section 80G(5)

total income was assessed at Rs.35,65,88,180/- after making the said disallowance. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that - Donations were made to All India Social Education Charitable Trust and Dahiben Patel Charitable Trust

Income Tax Officer Ward 3, Satara, Income Tax Office Satara vs. Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Dahiwadi Man

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

ITA 1562/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. /Ita No.1562/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer, V Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, Ward-3, Satara S Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan: Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nandkumar Dattatray Khot, V The Income Tax Officer, Shri Agencies Dahiwadi, S Ward-3, Satara. Dahiwadi, Man Satara. Maharashtra – 415508. Pan:Aatpk8947P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Ar Shri Vidya Ratna Kishor – (Dr)(Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 250

read with 22/05/2023 section 144B of the Income Tax Act Against the order u/s 147 rws 1448, dated 22/05/2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) The assessee took around 12 grounds before CIT(A) as mentioned in the page 3 of the Ld CIT(A)'s order

Surya Electromech Privet Limited, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Gandhidham

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

ITA 262/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.262/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Income Tax Officer, Suryaelectromech Private Limited, Vs. Ward 2, Plot No.33, Gidc, Sector No.8, Gandhidham Gujrat Gandhidham 370201 370201

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia, Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 144Section 250

therefore, we set - aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal before CIT(A) for fresh consideration by the assessing officer, with a liberty to the assessee to prove his case by producing sufficient evidence/material to the satisfaction

Income Tax Officer, Vejapur vs. Darshan Orna Limited, Navrangpura

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1606/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1606/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Darshan Orna Limited बनाम/ Vejalpur 102, Shri Balaju Paragon V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcd 7142 E अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was maintaining regular books of accounts which were duly audited under