← 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

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

Shubh Shakh Sahakari Society Maryadit, Ratlam vs. ITO Ward - 2, Ratlam

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

ITA 74/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishubh Shakh Sahakari Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Society Maryadit, Ward-2, Vs. 54, Subhash Complex, Ratlam Opp. Mpeb, Jaora Ratlam

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

aforesaid order is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein ... core ground and reason for the dismissal of first appeal under the Act were as follows:- “4.10 In this proceeding, the appellant was provided with sufficient opportunities to substantiate the contentions raised in its ground of appeal. However, despite lapse of considerable amount of time and even after number

Aroleen Softech and Engineering Private Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(1), Indore

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

ITA 116/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiaroleen Softech & Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Engineering Private 1(1), Vs. Limited, Indore 270 Shastri Market, Indore (Pan: Aajca4128P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 246ASection 250Section 253

dated 14.11.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds

Bhagwan Prasadsinghania HUF, Neemuch vs. AO NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 850/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibhagwan Prasad Nfac, बनाम/ Singhania Huf, Delhi Vs. 8 Shastri Nagar, Neemuch

Section 115BSection 147Section 246ASection 250Section 253

aforesaid assessment order is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated ... therein. 2.3 The core ground and reason for dismissal of first appeal under the Act were as follows:- “9. Further, on perusual of Form-36, it is seen that the appellant has neither attached/uploaded any submission nor submitted any evidences/documents/ explanation in support of facts and grounds of appeal, Various

Dhruv Narayan Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO-2(3), Bhopal

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

ITA 751/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidhruv Narayan Singh, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ E-2/192 Arera Colony, 2(3), Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Pan: Aprps4102H) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 153CSection 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250Section 253

234B. The aforesaid is hereinafter referred to as “impugned rectification order”. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned rectification order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of Page 2 of 7 Dhruv Narayan Singh ITA No.751/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2011-12 the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in disposing appeal filed against order u/s 154 without deciding first appeal filed against the order u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3). The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal as and when

Rupesh Jaiswal, Dharampuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

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

ITA 717/IND/2024[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirupesh Jaiswal, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 111, Azad Marg, Indore Vs. Dist. Dhar, Tehsil Dharampuri, Dharampuri (Pan: Akopj7192C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka & Ms. Eva Rawka, Ars Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned intimation order”. 2.6 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on grounds ... order” has not given any adequate finding. He finally prayed that even the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered this factual aspect in the first appeal and has erroneously upheld the “impugned assessment order” by passing the “impugned order”. Under these circumstances the Ld. AR pleaded and prayed that

Madhya Pradesh Building and Other Construction Welfare Board, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 382/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Madhya Pradesh Building Dcit (Exemption) & Other Construction Bhopal Welfare Board, बनाम/ 82- Harshvardhan Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaalm0795N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 15.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 passed ... parte assessment-order u/s 144 dated 30.03.2022 determining total income as high as Rs. 260,38,02,571/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). 2.1 During first-appeal, the CIT(A) issued three notices to assessee but the same also remained uncompiled. Ultimately

Mahesh Khandelwal, Indore vs. Addl JCIT (A) -1 Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 139(7)Section 143(1)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 ame] /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 16.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation ... determining total income at Rs. 7,44,040/- after making an addition of Rs. 2,70,000/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, dismissed assessee’s appeal on the ground of inordinate delay of more than 12 years in filing

Patidar Builder Pvt Ltd, Bhopal vs. AO, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 557/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Patidar Builder Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer E-4/382 Arera Colony, (Jcit-Range-2, Bhopal) बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacp8931A Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bumb, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)

Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 04.03.2014 passed ... assessment-order u/s 143(3) determining total income at Rs. 1,30,71,900/- after making certain disallowances/additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and got part relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

Patidar Builer Private Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assessing Officer, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed partly

ITA 556/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 68

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 smez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... assessment-order u/s 143(3) determining total income at Rs. 2,23,92,730/- after making certain disallowances/additions. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and got part relief. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under

Income Tax Officer 3(1), Bhopal, Metro Walk Building vs. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, Legal Heir of Smt. Rampyari Bai, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiincome Tax Officer 3(1), Ramesh Kumar Sahu बनाम/ Bhopal L/H Of Late Smt. Ram Vs. Pyari Bai, 127 New Market, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Anhps5515N) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.14 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has allowed the 1st appeal on the grounds and reasons

Rekhaben Suresh Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 6855/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 249(3)Section 250

this case the assessment order was passed on 26.11.2019 u/s 144 of the Act against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who vide impugned order ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine as time barred by observing and holding as under: 2 Ms. Rekhaben ... Suresh Sanghvi “ There is a delay of 1055 days in filing of first appeal before him and the Assessee has failed to provide any appealing reason or supporting evidence to justify a delay over 1000 days. The reasons provided are general and do not constitute a “sufficient cause” as required

Hughes Comtel Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40ASection 43B

assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act well in time. Later after 4 years and 07 months, the assessee filed first appeal against the processing order under section 143(1) 2 HCIL Comtel P. Ltd. of the Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) did not condone

Shree Jee Timbers, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 679/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 679/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year : 2022-23 M/s. Shree Jee Timbers B-33, Opposite 200 Ft. Bypass, Ayodhya Nagar, Chitrakoot, Jaipur – 302 021 बनाम The ITO Ward-1 (1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACQFS 6816 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

For Appellant: ShriShrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

Hence, the AO made addition of Rs.22,02,129/- in the hands of the asssessee as u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. From the records, it is noted

Sylvan Greens Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Bhala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 801C

hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 9 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR 2.3 In first appeal, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by confirming the action of the AO as to the addition made ... assessee amounting to Rs.71,86,388/- as income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee did not respond to the notices issued

S R Agro Tech, Behror vs. ITO, Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1304/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 40Section 69A

respect of unexplained income is initiated. As discussed in the body of the Order. [Addition of Rs. 31,39,000/-] 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that in spite of various notices, the assessee had not furnished any reply ... monetization is unexplained Money and the AO invoked Section 145(3) by making trading addition of Rs.5.00 lacs in the hands of the assessee.In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee had not furnished any reply in spite

Satish Narayan Tarale, Belgavi vs. Intl.Taxation Ward, Panaji

ITA 55/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 055/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satish Narayan Tarale 35, Laxmi Narayan Niwas, 2Nd Stage, Hanuman Nagar, Belgaum-590001. Pan : Afkpt0032Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenges Din & Order No Itba/Ast/F/144/2024- 25/1072202908(1) Dt. 15/01/2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 253(6)Section 3Section 4Section 6(6)Section 69A

satisfy as to ‘whether such legal ground raised first time before the Tribunal can be admitted?’ more specifically when it was not raised in first appeal but arising out of impugned order assailed against. In this context, it shall suffice to state that, the legal ground raised is ascended

Mani Bhushan Kumar, Patna vs. CIT, Patna

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

ITA 642/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 1700,000/- without considering the written submissions and evidences furnished by the appellant in first appeal proceedings. 10. For that the sustenance of addition of Rs 1700,000 is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances

Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 854/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year : 2015-16 Goverdhan Lal Yadav, Ito-3(5) 112/12, Nanda Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Opp. Anoop Takies, Vs. Indore (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaypy9432A Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 54B

sent on mail?” in Form No. 35 filed to CIT(A). Despite this, the notices of hearing as well as order of first- appeal were sent by CIT(A) on the e-mail; (ii) that neither the notices nor the order of first-appeal have been served physically upon ... agricultural land for which exemption u/s 54B had been claimed. The AO, however, disallowed exemption to assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and contested the issue of availability of exemption u/s 54B. However, the assessee could not participate in the hearings fixed by CIT(A) and therefore

Arcpl Developers Private Limited, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 731/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 156A(1)Section 5

Shri Anoop Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... after making certain additions and determining total income at Rs. 11,65,83,363/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal before CIT(A) on as many as 9 grounds as re-produced by CIT(A) in Para 3 of impugned order. During pendency of first appellate proceedings

Raisen Marketing P Ltd, Bhopal vs. The ADIT CPC, Bghopal

In the result, the present appeal is allowed in so far as it relates

ITA 157/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 37

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.07.2025 amet /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated