← 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)

Anil Kumar Pruthi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

mistake u/s 154 of the Act claiming exemption for whole of leave encashment amount of Rs.13,81,050/- was rejected. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), after discussing theoretically many issues, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Anil Kumar

Bullock Cart Workers Development Association, Villupuram vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 2678/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2678/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 250

CIT(A) in-limine without condoning the delay in filing the appeal before him (delay of 787 days in filing the appeal). The CIT(A) also noted in spite of five notices issued from the office of the First Appellate Authority to file evidence / submissions, the assessee had not responded ... same. 3. The ld.AR submitted that assessee had not submitted an affidavit or a condonation application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A). It was stated by ld.AR, however in Column No.15 of Form 35, the reasons for belated filing of appeal before the CIT

Naresh Balyan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Naresh Balyan Vs Acit 125-A, Shyam Park Central Circle-16 Nawada, Uttam Nagar Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110059 Delhi Pan-Adqpb8836L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jasmeet Singh, Adv. & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2024 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 292CSection 69ASection 69C

taxable income at Rs. 2,43,14,030/- and framed the assessment accordingly. Naresh Balyan vs ACIT 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). 6. The assessee asserted before the CIT(A) that additions towards alleged unexplained expenditure quantified at Rs. 2,30,67,904/- has been

Makewaves Sea Resorts Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3861/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrimakewaves Sea Rsorts Pvt. V/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(3)(1) Ltd. बनाम 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Construction House – B, Mumbai-400020 2Nd Floor, 623, Linking Road, Khar(West), Mumbai-400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacm0673J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjaj B. SawantFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 23(5)Section 250

head income from house property. P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2017-18. Makewaves Sea Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who allowed part relied vide order dated 05.06.2024. In his order, Ld. CIT(A) observed that the amendment to section 23(5) comes

Alpha Stock & Finservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7798/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Mahavir Singh & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Alpha Stock & Vs Dcit Finservices Pvt Ltd. 24/1A, Circle – 2 (1) Mohan Co-Operative, New Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Pan No.Aaaca8427G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 68

served, therefore, the Assessing Officer treated these as unexplained share capital and added u/s. 68 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing in para 7.2.4 as under :- “7.2.4 The decision

ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh vs. Smt. Renu Anand, Chandigarh

ITA 1353/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Mahajan, CA and Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

bare facts of the case which are all recorded in the order of Ld. AO dt. 29/03/2016 which were not effectively rebutted in appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. DR effectively submitted that chain of transaction as it relates backward from date of receipt of loan are gross leaving source ... 14/10/2024 from pages 1 to 101 wherein copy of assessment order for A.Y 2013-14 of Gagan Suri and papers related to further appeal to CIT(A) are enclosed. We have perused the same carefully. They have placed on record compilation of judgement from page 1 to 51 (not recited

Somnath Kelavni Mandal, Nadiad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption-Baroda

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

ITA 937/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 69A

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who has given five opportunities of hearing between 27-01-2021 to 20-02-2024. None of the hearing notices were responded by the assessee, thereby

Shrikant Joshi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur

Appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by ld

ITA 971/JPR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal While Challenging Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Passed U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). The Matter Pertains To The Assessment Year 2023-24. As Claimed In The Itr, The Assessee Was In The Business Of Real Estate & Renting

For Appellant: Shri Utkarsh Mishra, CAFor Respondent: MS. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 250

submitted before or at the time of filing of ITR, was submitted late. Feeling aggrieved by said order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In that appeal, the assessee had challenged order dated 10th Jan, 2024 passed

Anurag Bhardwaj, Shalimar Extn-II Sahibabad vs. Ward 2(1)(1) Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 3591/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Ita No:- 3591/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2015-16)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nayyar, Dr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 249(2)

limit for filing an appeal u/s 249(2) of the Act is available to the assessee till 26.04.2023. Since the assessee has filed appeal before CIT(A) on 27.08.2023, there is delay of 123 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition before the CIT(A), supported by evidence

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra, Ita No:- 2457/Del/2017 (Assessment Year- 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. and Shri Saksham Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)

disallowed 20% of the expenses claimed under work in progress, on adhoc basis, amounting to Rs. 12.52 crore. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) 10. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by observing in paras 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 as follows: “5.4.2 The appellant has claimed that

M/S Evergreen Infra Structures, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-41(4)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5405/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval SalotFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 133ASection 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)Section 250

assessed income of INR.5,61,96,744/- as against the returned income of INR.2,38,16,744/-. 4 Being aggrieved the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant had failed to pay self assessment tax on the income declared in the return

Amar Harshad Dani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

have taken immediate steps to seek professional advice and file the appeal.” 7. According to the CIT(A) the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) was not to be condoned since the Appellant was negligent in her conduct. However, on perusal of record we are not in agreement ... passed by the CIT(A) is set aside. Delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned and the issue raised in appeal before CIT(A) are restored back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Thus, Grounds No. 2 raised by the Appellant are allowed

Adala Bhanu Rekha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.583/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Adala Bhanu Rekha Vs. Dcit Hyderabad Circle-6(1) [Pan : Accpa8679F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Bg Reddy, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2017-18 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri BG Reddy, ARFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

MANJUNATHA G., A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31/03/2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Learned CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18 on the following grounds : 1. The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is erroneous ... Rs.4,00,59,831/- towards disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee had challenged reopening of the assessment and argued that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

year. Income Rs. 42,06,970 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

year. Income Rs. 42,06,970 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT

Shreenathji Associates, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 592/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.592, 593 & 594/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2014-15 Respectively Shreenathji Associates The Ito बनाम/ Sb-1, Shreeji Avenue, W#Ard-1(2)(4) V/S. 11, Sampatrao Colony Vadodara – 390 007 Jetalpur Road Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abufs 4107 P (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Arise From The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Dated 11/05/2023, 30/11/2023 & 02/02/2024 Respectively For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 (Both Under Original & Reassessment Proceedings). Since The Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Common, They Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43C

year. Income Rs. 42,06,970 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Rs. 1,76,74,120 Assessed by AO 3. The assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against these independent orders of the AO. In all three assessment years (2013-14, 2014-15 Original, and 2014-15 Reassessment), the CIT

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observing that the Assessee had itself claimed exemption in respect of dividend income. 8.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the Assessee and deleted the addition/disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act holding that no disallowance under Section ... business income of the Assessee holding that the same had the impact of reducing the taxable surplus. However, in appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the Judgment, dated 20/07/2015, passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in IT Appeals Nos. 688 & 711 of 2013 [reported

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai. vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2384/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, observing that the Assessee had itself claimed exemption in respect of dividend income. 8.2. In appeal, the CIT(A) accepted the contention of the Assessee and deleted the addition/disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act holding that no disallowance under Section ... business income of the Assessee holding that the same had the impact of reducing the taxable surplus. However, in appeal the CIT(A) deleted the addition by following the Judgment, dated 20/07/2015, passed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in IT Appeals Nos. 688 & 711 of 2013 [reported

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sri Ram Murti Anchal Memorial Educational Society, Shahjahanpur vs. CIT(A)-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeals are dismissed on account of failure on the part of the assessee to remove the defects

ITA 285/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

time barred by 15 days (viii) In Form-36, name of the assessee has not been written correctly I.T.A. No.284/Lkw/2023 (i) Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) not filed (ii) Original Form-36 not filed in triplicate (iii) Form-35 not filed/not filed in duplicate (iv) Assessment order not filed ... Appeal is time barred by 15 days (vi) In Form-36, name of the assessee has not been written correctly (vii) Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) not filed. (B) Despite substantial lapse of time since issue of defect memo by the Registry, and inspite of several opportunities