← 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, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Aarthi Scans, Kovilpatti

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

ITA 75/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, CA
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

dated 27.12.2019. The AO framed reassessment and made additions to the tune of Rs.1,43,83,139/- under various heads. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The assessee before CIT(A) raised the issue of assumption of jurisdiction and challenged the reopening of assessment

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Standard Chargered Global Business Servies Pvt. Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 124/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

disallowed this sum of Rs.2,58,90,031/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A)-NFAC also treated the nature of payment as a reimbursement of salary cost paid to such group entities ... Hence, the AO treated the same as finance lease and disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.1,63,01,535/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A)-NFAC allowed the claim of assessee by observing in para 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 as under:- 5.2.5 The appellant made

Standard Chartered Global Business Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 964/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Standard Chartered Global The Deputy Commissioner Business Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, No.1, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 124/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 The Assistant Standard Chartered Global Commissioner Of Income Vs. Business Services Pvt. Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle 3(1), No.1, Haddows Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Aaecs 9043E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 195Section 40

disallowed this sum of Rs.2,58,90,031/- by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. The CIT(A)-NFAC also treated the nature of payment as a reimbursement of salary cost paid to such group entities ... Hence, the AO treated the same as finance lease and disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs.1,63,01,535/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 13. The CIT(A)-NFAC allowed the claim of assessee by observing in para 5.2.5 & 5.2.6 as under:- 5.2.5 The appellant made

Irshad Zafar Malik, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for 11

ITA 259/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 144Section 147Section 69

That out of curiosity I have browsed the e-portal of Mr. Irshad Zafar Malik and has found that appellate order in Appeal No. CIT(A) 57, Mumbai/10275/2018- 19 dated 10/03/2023 dismissing the appeal was lying in the e-portal under the our information". 5 6. That this order came ... Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2018, 9. passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. The Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings as well as the legal propriety of the additions made on merits. The Appellant also appointed Counsel

Chhothmal Ganesharam Suthar, Mumbai vs. CIT-(A) Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 203/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order, dated 03/08/2023, in view of the fact that the Appellant had failed to file any response/reply to the notice of hearing dated 13/01/2021, 28/04/2023 and 15/07/2023 issued by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also noted that despite enablement of communication window no response was received from the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the above order of dismissal passed by the CIT(A), the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. As per the registry, there was a dela

For Appellant: Shri Manglamber R. DwivediFor Respondent: Shri H.M Bhatt
Section 143(3)

assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Appellant vide Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2017. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order, dated 03/08/2023, in view of the fact that the Appellant had failed to file any response/reply

Purvi Vasantrai Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4359/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Him & Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

particulars of income while claiming deduction of INR 40,00,000/- under Section 54EC of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the aforesaid penalty order, dated 30/03/2018, which was dismissed vide order, dated 09/10/2023, passed by the CIT(A) on the ground

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3600/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

addition of INR 7,34,42,292/- under Section 69C of the Act on account of undisclosed expenditure 7. Being aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order and challenge the validity of the assessment proceedings as well as legal propriety of the Assessment Years

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3596/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

addition of INR 7,34,42,292/- under Section 69C of the Act on account of undisclosed expenditure 7. Being aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order and challenge the validity of the assessment proceedings as well as legal propriety of the Assessment Years

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3476/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

addition of INR 7,34,42,292/- under Section 69C of the Act on account of undisclosed expenditure 7. Being aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order and challenge the validity of the assessment proceedings as well as legal propriety of the Assessment Years

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

ITA 3475/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

addition of INR 7,34,42,292/- under Section 69C of the Act on account of undisclosed expenditure 7. Being aggrieved, Assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A) against the assessment order and challenge the validity of the assessment proceedings as well as legal propriety

S K Sharma Contractor, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed as above

ITA 798/DEL/2023[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 220(2)Section 244A

income Tax dated 04.07.2020. The said correspondence was communicated to the appellant on 06.08.2020. After receiving the same, the appellant preferred the appeal before CIT(A). In form no. 35, appellant has mentioned this correspondence letter No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2020-21/1027439191 dated 04.07.2020 and also mention the section

Jalpa Savankumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)

Rs.90 lacs as an income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggrieved against the ex-parte order, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad on 26.12.2019 explaining the source of investment namely her husband employed in Adani Infra Ltd. enclosing Form No.16 and bank statements

Pashankar Auto India Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 955/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 156Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Pune, is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis delay of only 14 days in filing the appeal. The appeal before CIT(A) be restored by setting aside his order dt. 31/05/2018. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

Pashankar Auto India Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 954/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 156Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

Pune, is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the basis delay of only 14 days in filing the appeal. The appeal before CIT(A) be restored by setting aside his order dt. 31/05/2018. 3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sundri Chimandas, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 969/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Ragunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 969/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sundri Chimandas Deputy Commissioner Of 49, Old No. 27, T. Mangharam, V. Income Tax, Rattan Bazaar, Central Circle -3(4), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai. [Pan: Aabpc-1797-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

income offered during survey as unexplained investment u/s.69B of the Act and assessed to tax u/s.115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee upheld the action of the AO by noting that the investment in excess

ACIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Tvs Motor Company Limited, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील िं./Ita No. 06/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17. The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Chaitanya, No.12, Corporate Circle-3(1), Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. [Pan: Aaacs7032B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Vikaram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit ुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12Section 153(1)Section 250(6)Section 9Section 92C

disallowance under Rule-14A r.w.8D vide his order dated 01.01.2020. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assesee preferred an appeal before CIT(A), Chennai who has since passed his order ITA No.584/CIT(A)-16 / 2019-20 dated 27.09.2022 which is being contested by the Revenue

Amit Kapoor, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1445/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

equivalent amount of cash received of sales transaction for a total consideration of Rs. 3,03,46,301/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj :: 13 :: 8. The CIT(A) after going through the facts of the case and familiar circumstances, deleted the penalty by observing

Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, Tirupur vs. Addl. CIT, Range-1, Tirupur

ITA 1415/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1415/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj, The Addl.Cit, 56/88, Rayapuram Extension, Range-1, 1St Street, Tirupur. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Adypd 3863 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. SridharFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271D

equivalent amount of cash received of sales transaction for a total consideration of Rs. 3,03,46,301/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). Shri Samiappagounder Dharmaraj :: 13 :: 8. The CIT(A) after going through the facts of the case and familiar circumstances, deleted the penalty by observing

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 518/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

allowable expenditure under the Act and hence, he disallowed the entire claim of assessee claimed at Rs.4,80,99,369/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3.2 The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the disallowance holding that the assessee could not prove that ... thereby the AO disallowed total expenses relatable to exempt income u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D(2) at Rs.22,53,976/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the ground of assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before

Titan Company Limited 9Earstwhile Known As Titan Industries Limited), Krishnagiri vs. ACIT Ltu 1, Chennai

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

ITA 507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri T. Surya Narayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

allowable expenditure under the Act and hence, he disallowed the entire claim of assessee claimed at Rs.4,80,99,369/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 3.2 The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee confirmed the disallowance holding that the assessee could not prove that ... thereby the AO disallowed total expenses relatable to exempt income u/s.14A r.w.rule 8D(2) at Rs.22,53,976/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the ground of assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before