“appeal before CIT(A)”

Veena Singh, Kaushambi vs. ACIT(Cir.-1), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

assessee at Rs.17,00,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 30/10/2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT against

Amalsad Vibhag Vivish Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Mandli Ltd., Na vs. Arivs.PCIT, Valsad

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2024 Ays: 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Amalsad Vibhag Vividh Principal Commissioner Of Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Income Tax, Valsad, 301/3Rd Vs. Mandli Ltd., At & Po. Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Amalsad, Tal. Gandevi, Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 Dist. Navsari-396 310 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa 1043 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

order of AO was also prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 4.2 Regarding contention of assessee that impugned issue was subject matter of appeal before CIT(A), the Ld. PCIT at para-11 of the order u/s 263 stated that the issue under consideration was neither under consideration before CIT ... ITAT and not on decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submitted that assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the impugned order of AO. The CIT(A) has subsequently decided the appeal in favour of the assessee. Similar issue was also decided

Shoukat Mohd. Khan, Bhopal vs. ITO 4(2), Bhopal

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shoukat Mohd. Khan, Ito 4(2), H.No.1, Street No.1, Bhopal Chhawani, बनाम/ Near Bharat Talkies, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Avnpk4460E Assessee By Shri Manish Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

another property at Plot No. 1, MP Housing Board, Lake View Colony, Koh-e-fiza, Bhopal. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed additional evidences before CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 which were admitted by CIT

Makson Health Care Pvt Ltd Makson Industries Pvt Ltd Before Merger, Mandideep Raisen vs. The DCIT -10-2 (2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Makson Health Care Pvt. Dcit 10(2)(2) Ltd. Mumbai Plot No.6A, Akvn Industrial Area, बनाम/ Mandideep, Vs. Raisen (M.P.)

thereby determining total income at Rs. 3,92,95,800/-. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the impugned disallowance in first-appeal before CIT(A) but did not get success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. Ld. AR for assessee made a straightforward submission that

Vishal Rudrawal, Chhatri Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur Mp

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2018-19 Vishal Rudrawal Ito, Chhatri Road, Bhanpura Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandsaur Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Awkpr6115P Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025

passed ex-parte assessment-order u/s 144 assessing total income at Rs. 3,87,23,235/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) but there was a delay of 256 days in filing appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay ... decision. It is only after overcoming from illness that the assessee was able to perform regular work and then the assessee filed first-appeal to CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that all these true facts were submitted to CIT(A) in condonation- application but, however, the CIT(A) rejected assessee

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was delay of 151 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). In Form No.35, assessee mentioned that e-mail address on which notices were served belonged to previous CA of the assessee. The appellant came ... above reasons, assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings 5 ITA Nos.807 & 808/SRT/2024/AYs.2020-21 Soni and Brothers and therefore, delay occurred in filing appeal before CIT(A). Hence, ld. AR requested to grant another opportunity in the interest of justice. Considering the facts of the case

Soni and Brothers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(6), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.807 & 808/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Physical Hearing) Soni & Brother, Vs. The Ito, H-29, New Sardar Market, Dumbhai Ward – 2(3)(6), Patia, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawfs6792H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashish Bhoola, Ca Respondent By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was delay of 151 days in filing the appeal before CIT(A). In Form No.35, assessee mentioned that e-mail address on which notices were served belonged to previous CA of the assessee. The appellant came ... above reasons, assessee was not aware of the assessment proceedings 5 ITA Nos.807 & 808/SRT/2024/AYs.2020-21 Soni and Brothers and therefore, delay occurred in filing appeal before CIT(A). Hence, ld. AR requested to grant another opportunity in the interest of justice. Considering the facts of the case

K Patel International, Ankleshwar vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.785/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) K. Patel International, Vs. The Acit, Residential Plot No.64, New Circle – 2, Colony, Valia Road, Gidc, Bharuch Ankleshwar – 393002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfk7262Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh Modiani, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2025

Shri Bipin Jatakia and (iv) foreign travelling expenses of Rs.2,70,655/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). the CIT(A) has dismissed all grounds of appeal and confirmed the order of AO. It is seen that the CIT(A) has confirmed

Ghanshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

lacs were added separately. Thus, the AO made total addition of Rs.26,47,610/- (23,31,000+3,16,608). On appeal before CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submission as noted in para-4 of impugned order. Though, the contents of assesses submissions are not recorded by Id CIT

Gahnshyam K Kevadiya HUF, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsth Sitet G./Ita Nos.1030 & 1031/Srt/2024 (Ay 2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing)

lacs were added separately. Thus, the AO made total addition of Rs.26,47,610/- (23,31,000+3,16,608). On appeal before CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed submission as noted in para-4 of impugned order. Though, the contents of assesses submissions are not recorded by Id CIT