“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres

240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court

135

citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.

1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT

373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 2742/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

M/S. R R Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2741/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

For Appellant: Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Natarajan Sridhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed for statistical

ITA 8312/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Mr. Natarajan Sridhar, Income Tax Officer, Ward – 42(2)(4), B3093, Casa Serenita Sobha City, Thanisandra Main Road Hedge Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Vs. Bengaluru, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Karnataka – 560 064 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aqkps5379Q (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya E.CA, (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee and also the quantum of delay, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for filing the first appeal beyond the period of limitation and there being no reason for any negligence on the part of the assessee. Further, we are also conscious

Rajav Jain, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ashoknagar, Ashoknagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 457/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajav Jain V Ito, Ward No. 18, Purana Bazar, Ashok Nagar Ashok Nagar M.P. – 473 331 M.P. – 473 331 Pan : Anmpj1439M (Appellant)(Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year |A.Y. 2011-12, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant, a non-filer. Assessing officer noticed that an amount ... Rajav Jain, Ashok Nagarv ITO, Ashok Nagar 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee first appeal. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer, ignoring the fact that

Savita Sanjay Marghade, Durg, Chhattisgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhilai

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

ITA 849/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 849/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14) Savita Sanjay Marghade, Mig-658, Vs Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhavan, Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Opposite Geet Talkies, 491001 New Civic Centre, Sector 6 Bhilai Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 490006 Pan: Aktpm6715H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : None. राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2013-14 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.10.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250

said share transactions aggregating to Rs.1,34,02,971/- was taxed accordingly. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The said first appeal was delayed by 518 days, which was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reasoning that the justification for condonation of delay

Amar Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2848/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Aman Gupta, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ltu Chennai, Chennai

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

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2565/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, The Deputy Commissioner A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, Vs. Of Income Tax, 189, Lloyds Road, Circle 1, Gopalapuram, Ltu, Chennai – 600 086. Chennai. Pan: Adzpa 0417D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 147ASection 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

requirement of issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), or ii. the alleged invalidity of sanction under section 151(ii). 26. Even in the first appeal before the Id. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the reopening only on general grounds (Grounds 2-4 in Form 35) and furnished no specific

Avaneesh Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7644/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankaravaneesh Impex Private Vs. Ito 4(1)(2) Limited Room No. 636 6Th Floor, Office No. B-311, Vallabh Aayakar Bhavan. Bhuvan, 3Rd Floor, Babubhai Mumbai - 400020 Vashi Road, Near Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Mumbai - 400056

Section 119Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that CBDT Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016 had expressly extended the time limit for mandatory e-filing of first appeals up to 15.06.2016 and the said circular is squarely applicable in case of the appellant. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Acti C 2(1)(1) Agra, Agra vs. Jones Traders, Agra

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 496/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2017-18 Acit C 2(1)(1), Agra V Jones Traders 8-35, Shoe Market, Hingh Ki Mandi, Agra - 282 003 Pan : Aadfj1407D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 263

assessee. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred 1st appeal on 28.04.2023 against the subsequent assessment order before learned CIT(A), who allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purpose by treating the impugned subsequent assessment as infructuous due to reversal of the PCIT’s directions issued u/s 263 of the Act, vide

Rajav Jain, Purana Bazar Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ashoknagar, Income Tax Office Ashoknagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2009-10 Rajav Jain V Ito, Ward No. 18, Purana Bazar, Ashok Nagar Ashok Nagar M.P. – 473 331 M.P. – 473 331 Pan : Anmpj1439M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment year |A.Y. 2009-10, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's first appeal. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant, a non-filer. Assessing officer noticed that an amount ... Rajav Jain, Ashok Nagar v ITO, Ashok Nagar 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee first appeal. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the ground that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by Assessing officer, ignoring the fact

Jitendra Kumar Agarwal HUF, Agra vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(1)(1), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) engaged in the business of trading in silver and gold ornaments ... total income declared by the assessee, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 4. The appellant assessee has raised

Prathmik Krishi Saakh Saakari Sanstha Maryadit Nagarganwada, Sheopur vs. ITO, Morena

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 443/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2018-19 Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sanstha V Ito, Marydit Nagar, Gaganwada Morena Tillipur, Morena M.P. – 476 337 M.P. – 476 001 Pan : Aaabp2878F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250

wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee's appeal upon rejection of assessee's request for condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. 2. None responded for the appellant assessee despite rejection of assessee's application for adjournment. Perused records and heard Ld. Sr. DR for the respondent revenue ... very outset, it is noticed that the first appeal was filed on 03.04.2025 against the assessment order dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s 147/144B of the Act. 2 Prathmik Krishi Saakh Sanstha, Morena v ITO, Morena by the delay about 706 days. It appears that the reasons for the delay shown before

Sagar Dwellings P Ltd, Near Sun Temple Gwalior vs. ACIT, Faceless

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.. 2(i). Brief facts state that the assessee is in the business of building construction. It filed ... total income of the assessee, vide reassessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the impugned addition. 4 | P a g e 4. Present second appeal has been

Om Shri Shubh Labh Agritech Private Limited, Gwalior vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Gwalior

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

ITA 386/AGR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2021-22 Om Shri Shubh Labh Agritech Pvt. V Acit, Central Circle Ltd. Gwalior In Front Of Iiitm College, Near Hazira Police Station, Morena Link Road, Gwalior- 474 015 Pan : Aacco5246R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved, assessee preferred 1st appeal against the above said assessment order before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer. 4. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal mainly on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in passing impugned

Akshay Pinto, Chembur vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(1) Mumbai, Vashi

In the result Assessee’s Appeal is allowed

ITA 8261/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Akshay Pinto, Clara Sadan, Income Tax Officer 16Th Road, Chembur, Mumbai, 27(1)(1), 4Th Floor, Maharashtra - 400071. Vs. Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aoopp 2080 H Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Arvind Pinto & Shri Ryan Saldanha Revenue By : Shri. Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per :Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2025 Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. In This Case, During The Assessment Proceedingsinitiated On The Basis Of Scrutiny, Various Notices Dated 21.09.2018, 17.06.2019 & 22.06.2019 Were Issued To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer. Somehow, The Assessee Failed To Comply With The Notices Issued & Therefore The Assessing Officer Ultimately Passed The Assessment Order Dated 29.06.2019 U/S 144 Of The Act, Making Addition Of Rs.14,81,000/- U/S. 69A R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Arvind Pinto & Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR. DR.)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 272ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

challenged the decision of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty of Rs.10,000/- vide penalty order dated 18.12.2019. 4. Though the Assessee preferred First Appeal against the penalty order dated 18.12.2019 but of no avail and thus the Assessee being aggrieved has preferred instant Appeal. 5. We have heard

Jaishri Shivaji Waghralkar, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 22(1)(6), Mumabi

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

ITA 6781/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Jaishri Shivaji Waghralkar Income Tax Officer – Ward 22(1) 102A, Dadasaheb Phalke (6), Mumbai Marg, Navin Asha Chs, Vs. Dada (East), Mumbai 400014 (Pan: Aaupw9953G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ca Revenue : Shri Sushil B. Shendge, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1080005281(1), Dated 26.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward 21(1)(5), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) - Nfac, Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit (A)", Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte. The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Notice Dated 10-7-2025 Remained Non-Complied Only On Account Of Non-Communication Of The Same To The Appellant. The Appellant Submits That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Appeal Order Without Any Further Notice To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shendge, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

Rs.10,40,000/- was also made towards deposit of cash in her bank account treating it as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. In the first appeal before ld. CIT(A), assessee could not furnish any details and explanations though ample opportunities were given by fixing dates of hearing on several ... dates. Since, neither explanation nor documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee in the first appeal, the same was dismissed. The additions made by ld. Assessing Officer were sustained. 3 Jaishri Shivaji Waghralkar AY 2016-17 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed for restoration

Tabassum Abdulla Inamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6561/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Hirawat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

return of income u/s. 139(1) to claim credit of the foreign taxes paid in a country outside India, by way of deduction. The first appeal was dismissed against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that return of income

Narrotam Morarjee Institute of Shipping, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 270A

misreporting of income, the penalty finally imposed by the ld. AO in the impugned penalty order is Rs.13,32,260/-. 6. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the submissions made by the assessee and upheld the penalty so imposed by the ld. AO. 6 Narottam Morarjee

Mayuri Poddar, Sagar vs. Incone Tax Officer Ward 3, Sagar

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

ITA 174/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)

books whereas the same is reflected and is paid out of the regular books of accounts which are audited by Chartered Accountant. In the first appeal before the CIT(A) assessee has submitted the detail reply after which C1T (A) had partly allowed appeal of assessee in this ground

Chittibabu Ghanta, Panaji, Goa vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 281/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Ajaykumar V. [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azhar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)

delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 278/PAN/2024 for AY 2013-14 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining ... attention to paper book dt. 21/01/2026 placed on record by the Revenue and submitted that, for the years under consideration the assessee filed first appeals in time immediately after the assessment orders were passed. The Ld. CIT(A) upon their institution invariable forwarded multiple hearing notices and consequential impugned orders