← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer the assessee has preferred appeal before CIT(A)-4. Who has granted the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act and also allowed benefit of section

Mohammed Asim Naveed, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(3), Karnataka

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

ITA 670/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kr Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Mohammed Asim Naveed, Vs. Ito, Flat No.102, Mehdipatnam, Ward – 5(3)(3), Hyderabad – 500 028. Karnataka. Pan : Acxpn 7513 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mohammed Afzal, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Afzal, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 250

filing the appeal before him. The learned AR submitted that assessee had given only an explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A) in column 15 to Form 35 which has been extracted in paragraph 2 of the impugned Order of the CIT(A). It is submitted

Laxmi Narayan Residency D Co. Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrilaxmi Narayan Residency D Vs. Assistant Director Of Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Income-Tax Cpc, Plot No. 189, 190, 191, Bengaluru/Ito Ward(1)1, Village Majjwada, Gokhale Road, Thane Pokhran Road No. 2, Unnati Garden, 3, Thane (W.)-400610 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaal7961N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(19)Section 250Section 7Section 70Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

rectification u/s 154 of the Act was also rejected by the CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.02.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC on 09.03.2023. The CIT(A) vide order dated 07.11.2023 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival

Addi CIT Spl. Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, LIBOR + 300 points be charged and corporate guaranteed commission be charged @ 0

ITA 7700/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Prakshit Singh, Sr. DR

Interest 19,88,755.00 receied Difference to be 15,02,959.36 adjusted 8. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A), who directed to consider LIBOR +350 points, resulting in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. 9. Heard the arguments of both the parties

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1185/MUM/2024[2015-2016 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: the Tribunal. 4. We would first take up ITA No. 1173/Mum/2024 [Financial Year 2012-13: Quarter 2/Form 27EQ] as the lead matter which has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Revenue as per Section 156 of the Act. Thus, in our view, the Appellant had the right to challenge the computation in appeal before CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the intimation, dated 19/03/2023, issued under Section 154 of the Act is not appealable before ... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1181/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Revenue as per Section 156 of the Act. Thus, in our view, the Appellant had the right to challenge the computation in appeal before CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the intimation, dated 19/03/2023, issued under Section 154 of the Act is not appealable before ... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1173/MUM/2024[2013-2014 (Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Revenue as per Section 156 of the Act. Thus, in our view, the Appellant had the right to challenge the computation in appeal before CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the intimation, dated 19/03/2023, issued under Section 154 of the Act is not appealable before ... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal are allowed:

ITA 1165/MUM/2024[2015-2016 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 200A(3)Section 206C(3)Section 234E

Revenue as per Section 156 of the Act. Thus, in our view, the Appellant had the right to challenge the computation in appeal before CIT(A). It is not the case of the Revenue that the intimation, dated 19/03/2023, issued under Section 154 of the Act is not appealable before ... while computing delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February

Amish Umesh Jani, Thane, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(5), Ahmedabad, Gujarat

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

ITA 864/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271

appeal filed by the Appellant in limine for delay in filing of appeal. The appellant prays that the delay in filing of appeal before CIT(A) be condoned, and appeal should be taken up for hearing on merits of the case. 2. Ground NO. 2 :Dismissal of appeal after ... came to know about the proceedings initiated against her by the Department. It is claimed by her that she filed the appeal with CIT(A) immediately after coming to know that the re- assessment order has been passed by the Department against her. She has filed affidavit and application praying

Pushpendra Singh Chouhan, Sehore vs. ITO-Sehore, Sehore

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

ITA 122/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Pushpendra Singh Ito Chouhan, Sehore C/O Adv.Hitesh Chimnani, Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18 South Tukoganj, Near Hotel Crown Palace, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cggps1953Q Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ms. Komal Wadhwani & Komal Kataria, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)

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

Krishnasamy Maruthupandian, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Corp Ward 4, Madurai

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

ITA 863/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 863/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Krishnasamy The Income Tax Officer, Maruthupandian, Vs. Corporate Ward-4, D No.2/6/1531 Asari Colony, Madurai. 4Th Street, Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar – 626 124. Pan: Agzpm 0804B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Akash, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1058168632 (1) Dated 23.11.2023. The Assessment Was Framed By The Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14 U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 19.03.2022. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Nfac Confirming The Action Of Ao In Adding The Credits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.7,72,83,031/- As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act By Holding That The Assessee’S Appeal Is Dismissed As Un-Admitted & Infructuous For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Paid An Amount Equal To The Amount Of Advance Tax In Term Of Section 249(4)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 69A

order dated 19.03.2022 by adding the credits deposited in the assessee’s bank account amounting to Rs.7,72,83,031/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as unadmitted by giving the reason that the assessee has not paid an amount equal

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 491/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 489, 490 & 491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vs. Ward 2(1), Society Ltd., Erode. Arulvadi, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 461. Pan: Aacaa 1572C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the orders of CIT(A)-NFAC and stated that all these appeals before CIT(A) were filed with a delay of 276 days against the order of AO passed u/s.271A of the Act, delay of 234 days against the order of AO passed ... assessee before CIT(A)-NFAC contended that since the assessee does not have any proper accountant to take the responsibility to file the appeals before CIT(A) and unable to submit the details required in the appeal. It was contended that later the Member of Tamil Nadu Accounting and Taxation

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 490/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 489, 490 & 491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vs. Ward 2(1), Society Ltd., Erode. Arulvadi, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 461. Pan: Aacaa 1572C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the orders of CIT(A)-NFAC and stated that all these appeals before CIT(A) were filed with a delay of 276 days against the order of AO passed u/s.271A of the Act, delay of 234 days against the order of AO passed ... assessee before CIT(A)-NFAC contended that since the assessee does not have any proper accountant to take the responsibility to file the appeals before CIT(A) and unable to submit the details required in the appeal. It was contended that later the Member of Tamil Nadu Accounting and Taxation

Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary Agricultural Coop Credit Society Limited, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Erode

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 489/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 489, 490 & 491/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aa 294 Arulvadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Op Credit Vs. Ward 2(1), Society Ltd., Erode. Arulvadi, Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 461. Pan: Aacaa 1572C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms.A.Vijayalakshmi, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ld.counsel for the assessee took us through the orders of CIT(A)-NFAC and stated that all these appeals before CIT(A) were filed with a delay of 276 days against the order of AO passed u/s.271A of the Act, delay of 234 days against the order of AO passed ... assessee before CIT(A)-NFAC contended that since the assessee does not have any proper accountant to take the responsibility to file the appeals before CIT(A) and unable to submit the details required in the appeal. It was contended that later the Member of Tamil Nadu Accounting and Taxation

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

conveyance allowance paid to employees has been curtailed by Rs. 10,06,000/-. Hence appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 20. Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) read as under: 1. The assessment as it stands is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

conveyance allowance paid to employees has been curtailed by Rs. 10,06,000/-. Hence appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 20. Grounds of appeal before CIT(A) read as under: 1. The assessment as it stands is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. That

Ambika Property Ventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1003/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: him by way of a statement of facts and the grounds of appeal [Marvel Industries Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai, dated 19/07/2022, ITA No. 729/Mum/2022, Paragraph 3].

For Appellant: Shri S.M. BandiFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant made submissions in relation to the difficulties faced by the Appellant because of which the appeal before CIT(A) could not be pursued properly. However, since we have set aside the order, dated 10/01/2024, passed by CIT(A) with the directions

Bombay Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd Employees Co-Op Credit Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1325/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe a/w Asavari KadamFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatta (SR DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

period and it was served only on 27th March. 2023, there was no delay on the part of the Appellant to file the appeal before CIT(A). 7. Without prejudice to the above submissions it is submitted that the correspondence address & the mobile number of the Authorized Signatory ... statutes. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 11. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Appellant is engaged in providing credit facilities only to its members, who are employees of the Bombay

Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, Chennai vs. ITO, Con Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 669/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 669/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Rajesh Jagdish Trivedi, The Income Tax Officer, 312, Mint St, Parrys, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 6(1), Park Town Ho, Chennai. Chennai – 600 003. Pan: Aabpt 9341G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dated 21.02.2022 and levied penalty to the extent of 100% of tax evaded at Rs.1,38,123/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty by the AO by observing as under:- “In view of the above, the appellant

P. Ravichandran, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 582/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 582/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dr. P. Ravichandran, The Deputy Commissioner No.3, Second Link Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Raghava Reddy Colony, Central Circle – 1(3), Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 083. Pan: Aahpr 0455M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 54B

assessee treating the same as business transaction, adding a sum of Rs.2,23,90,000/-. Aggrieved against this assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The assessee before CIT(A) challenged the reopening of assessment and CIT(A) in ITA No.106/11-12 dated 10.08.2012 quashed the reopening by observing