← All Phrases

“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
87
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
59
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
55
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
40
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
32
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
30
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
28
citing judgments

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

Judgments citing first appeal

Shri Rakesh Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 676/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Rakesh Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 675/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 674/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 673/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 672/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 671/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

Shri Pawan Subhash Agrawal, Dhule vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik

ITA 670/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr Ravish Maniyar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 253(1)

other coupled with facts that, assessments framed in case of ‘Omshree Group’ whereupon search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act were reversed in first appeals and second appeals thereagainst by the Revenue came to be dismissed by co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 045/PUN/2022 to 050/PUN/2022 vide order

DCIT, Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1822/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank ... disallowed assessee's claim of deduction, citing the provisions to section 80P(4) of the Act. In first appeal, the CIT(A) placing reliance on various decisions including the decisions rendered in the case of Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank

DCIT, Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1821/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank ... disallowed assessee's claim of deduction, citing the provisions to section 80P(4) of the Act. In first appeal, the CIT(A) placing reliance on various decisions including the decisions rendered in the case of Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank

DCIT Circle, Rohtak vs. Sarva Haryana Garmin Bank, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1820/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Smt. Renu Jauhriआअसं.1820 To 1822/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17 To 2018-19)

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
Section 14Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 22Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

1822/DEL/2023 (AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19) amortization on securities ‘held to maturity’ and made addition of Rs.2,35,11,091-/. In first appeal, the CIT(A) deleting the addition following decisions rendered in the case of CIT(A) vs. HDFC Bank ... disallowed assessee's claim of deduction, citing the provisions to section 80P(4) of the Act. In first appeal, the CIT(A) placing reliance on various decisions including the decisions rendered in the case of Vidisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank

Aristo Foils Mfg Co., Pune vs. DCIT Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 1922/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1922/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aristo Foils Mfg. Co., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. W-229, S Block, Midc, Bhosari, Pune- 411026. Pan : Aabfa8946L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-12, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-12 Delhi Has Grievously Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte, Without Providing Sufficient Opportunity To Appellate. 2. On The Fact & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law Of The Learned Addl/Jcit (A) 12 Delhi Has Ought To Have Decided The Appeal On Merits Instead Of Dismissing The Appeal For Non- Attendance.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatray Dhavle
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 43B

Delhi is unjustified. It was submitted before the Bench that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee before passing ex-parte first appeal order. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench that at-least one opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal ... have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. From a perusal of the ex-parte first appeal order, we find that Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-12, Delhi, while passing the ex-parte order had not adjudicated the issue raised in appeal on merits

DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd, Pune

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

ITA 66/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

income as per normal provisions of the IT Act. The tax liability of the assessee company was worked on the books profits. 6. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions/disallowances of Rs.38,68,211/- & Rs.2,13,87,394/- respectively. However ... confirm the order of AO on this issue. 15. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the first appeal order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is correct wherein the addition on account of disallowance u/s 10AA amounting to Rs.2,13,87,394/- was deleted

Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune

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

ITA 133/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.133/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.66/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Entrata India Pvt. Ltd., International Tech Park, Block-1, Wing-A, 14Th Floor, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. Pan : Aaacw7089A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 14.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.11.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-13, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.133/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

income as per normal provisions of the IT Act. The tax liability of the assessee company was worked on the books profits. 6. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions/disallowances of Rs.38,68,211/- & Rs.2,13,87,394/- respectively. However ... confirm the order of AO on this issue. 15. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the first appeal order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is correct wherein the addition on account of disallowance u/s 10AA amounting to Rs.2,13,87,394/- was deleted

Jindal Padding Private Limited, Village Mannpura, Tehsil Nalag vs. Income Tax Officer Parwano, Parwano

ITA 100/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

Rs.12,36,000/- bearing No. ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1039387330(1) is dated 04.02.2022. The assessee being aggrieved by the order imposing penalty prefers first appeal before CIT(A) in terms of Section 246A and the ld. CIT(A) by impugned order has sustained the order of ld. AO imposing

Modella Caretaker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 300/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.137, 170, 271 & 300/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Modella Caretaker Centre….. ……..……………………....Appellant 27, Church Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Aabtm0003G] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(1), Siliguri……................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts Except Difference In Figures & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. The First Appeal Being

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 40A(2)(a)

therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. The first appeal being ITA No.137/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 is taken as lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

Modella Caretaker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.137, 170, 271 & 300/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Modella Caretaker Centre….. ……..……………………....Appellant 27, Church Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Aabtm0003G] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(1), Siliguri……................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts Except Difference In Figures & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. The First Appeal Being

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 40A(2)(a)

therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. The first appeal being ITA No.137/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 is taken as lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

Modella Care Taker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.137, 170, 271 & 300/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Modella Caretaker Centre….. ……..……………………....Appellant 27, Church Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Aabtm0003G] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(1), Siliguri……................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts Except Difference In Figures & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. The First Appeal Being

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 40A(2)(a)

therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. The first appeal being ITA No.137/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 is taken as lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

Modella Caretaker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.137, 170, 271 & 300/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Modella Caretaker Centre….. ……..……………………....Appellant 27, Church Road, Siliguri-734001. [Pan: Aabtm0003G] Vs. Acit(Osd), Ward-2(1), Siliguri……................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rip Das, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit & Somnath Das, Sr. Drs, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 23, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Pertaining To Four Assessment Years I.E 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013- 14 & 2014-15 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In All These Appeals Arise From Common Set Of Facts Except Difference In Figures & Related To Same Party, Therefore, These Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience, Brevity & Clarity. The First Appeal Being

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 40A(2)(a)

therefore, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, brevity and clarity. The first appeal being ITA No.137/Kol/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 is taken as lead case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 1485/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1485/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Vs. Cit(A), Delhi. Plot No.42, Gut No.33 (Part) Village- Golwadi, Growth Centre, Waluj Mahanagar Iv, Cidco, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Aacam8494M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ramesh Magar Revenue By : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1 Erroneous Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- I. The Ld. Assessing Officer & The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Making & Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 87,73,904/- Without Considering The Appellant'S Explanation That This Amount Is Already Included Under The Head Income From Business Or Profession. The Addition Is Based Solely On The Tds Schedule Without Verifying The Classification Of Income In The Itr, Which Was Incorrectly Classified Due To A Software Error. In The Complex Labyrinth Of Income Tax Law, The Principle Of Finality Serves As A Cornerstone

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh MagarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144B

assessee at Rs.53,22,08,510/-. The above assessed income includes Rs.87,73,904/- as additional income determined by the Assessing Officer. 4. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC found that the assessee has filed some response to the appeal hearing notice but the attachment as claimed were missing

Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2702/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Sabari Foundation Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Old No.5, New No.9, Vs. Corporate Ward 6(1), Seethammal Colony Extn., Chennai. Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aaecs 0298R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A) - Nfac Order Dated 20.06.2022, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 795 Days In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Company Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Along With Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Petition For Belated Filing Of This Appeal Are As Under:- “The Managing Director Of The Appellant Company Aged Around 59 Years Old Was Unwell Owing To Multiple Business Failures & Closed Businesses & The Appellant Company Was Also Closed & Deleted/Struck Off From The Roc, Chennai Vide Order Dated 09.08.2018 Due To Which There Were No Employees In The Company During The Pendency Of The First Appeal Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar,CIT
Section 250

from the ROC, Chennai vide order dated 09.08.2018 due to which there were no employees in the company during the pendency of the First Appeal Proceedings. The First Appeal Proceedings was conducted on a non-existing company during the Covid-19 Pandemic by issuing notices to the appellant