← All Phrases

“admission of additional evidence”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A1,576 judgments

M/S. VEDA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 491/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Punit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe SR. DR
Section 250Section 37(1)

book. On perusal of the documents forming part of the paper book, we find that the assessee has already filed an application seeking admission of additional evidence. However, it is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that while deciding the assessee’s appeal, the learned

ARHAM ANMOL PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,VILLAGE VALSHIND, BHIWANDI vs. CIRCLE 1 KALYAN, KALYAN, THANE

In the result, the legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment are dismissed

ITA 5011/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokararham Anmol Projects Dcit Circle 1, Private Limited 2Nd Floor, Rani H. No. 1113, Ground Vs. Mansion, Murbad Floor, Arham Logiparc, Road, Kalyan Nh-3, Nashik Highway, (West), Thane, Village Valshind, Maharashtra – 421 Bhiwandi, Maharashtra – 301 421 302. Pan/Gir No. Aagca9644P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Bains, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194ISection 234FSection 250

under section 147, which according to the assessee reflects procedural irregularity. The learned AR 8 Arham Anmol Projects Private Limited further prayed for admission of additional evidences, which could not be filed before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the appeal

ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 916/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

have noted that the ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry into the details filed by the assessee and merely objected to admission of additional evidences on the premise that they were not produced before the AO during assessment proceedings. It is the case of the Revenue that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MEERUT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1461/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

have noted that the ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry into the details filed by the assessee and merely objected to admission of additional evidences on the premise that they were not produced before the AO during assessment proceedings. It is the case of the Revenue that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALAINA BULLIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MEERUT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

have noted that the ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry into the details filed by the assessee and merely objected to admission of additional evidences on the premise that they were not produced before the AO during assessment proceedings. It is the case of the Revenue that

HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/CHANDI/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) Ld. Sr. DR
Section 148

land sale, as often practiced in rural transactions, and that the registry itself mentions the receipt of funds. The AR pleaded for the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A to prove the agricultural nature of the land and the source of the cash. 8. Per contra

STEP LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 636/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.636/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Step Logistics Private Limited A-1, Mahavir Gaushala Complex, K.K Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aancs0382F

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Ground of appeal No.6 is concerned, the assessee 3. had filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 praying for admission of additional evidence. The said application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is extracted as follows: 4 Step Logistics Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle

DEEP CHAND HAR PRASAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 43(1), DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 5289/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Amitabh Shukladeep Chand Har Prasad Vs Ito B-5, New Grain Market, Najafgarh, Ward-43(1) E-2 Block, New Delhi Pan: Aaifd1941M Civic Centre, New Delhi (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vijay Gupta, Adv Respondent By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm:

documents before us which were not submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) and even before us assessee has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence. Therefore, those documents cannot be considered by us at this stage without their being proper application. Considering the fact that

PARTH BUILDCON,GANDHINAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIS. AO-THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1062/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 133(6)

course of the assessment proceedings, along with the supporting evidences filed in response to the notices issued. The Ld. AR further requested for admission of additional evidence and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the claims before the Revenue Authorities. The Ld. AR also relied upon the following judicial precedents

SAHYADRI ADIVASI BAHUVIDH SEVA SANGH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , THANE

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

ITA 2466/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Income Tax Officer, Seva Sangh Exemption, Savarkar Road, Opp. S.T Mumbai Johns High School. Vs. Thane (West), Mumbai - 400601 (Pan: Aadts9375D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Suhas P. Bora, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-2, Surat, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072463266(1), Dated 23.01.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

sustainable and thus, addition made on this account was sustained. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee made an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962 (ITAT Rules) whereby order of ld. CIT(A) passed u/s.119(2)(b), dated

POREDDY SAMBASIVA REDDY,KADIRI vs. ITO, WARD-1, HINDUPUR

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

submitted that these documents are being filed for the first time before the Tribunal and therefore the assessee has filed a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 requesting the Bench to admit the same. The Ld. AR further submitted

VSC FINANCE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

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

ITA 38/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.38/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Vsc Finance Private Limited C Block, Siyaram Apartment, Mungeli Road, Mangla Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Aabcv4247Q

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

case, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has pressed an application dated 03.03.2026 under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidences. The said application is extracted as follows: 6 M/s. VSC Finance Private Limited Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 M/s. VSC Finance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, KOLHAPUR vs. KOLHAPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LIMITED, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 300/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Acit, Kolhapur Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Limited, B-1, Midc, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur – 416234 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaak0230D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sushant PhadnisFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)

limine without discussing anything on merits of the issues and on the ground that the assessee has not provided plausible explanation for admission of additional evidences. 8. Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act provides that the sum received in respect of any income by way of interest or dividend

PABBAREDDY KODANDARAMIREDDY,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NELLORE

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

ITA 527/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 69Section 69A

advances have been received and the same needs to be verified by the A.O. We find that, the assessee has furnished application for admission of additional evidences along with the details of names and addresses of the persons, along with the agreement of sale to prove receipt of advances from

KULDEEP,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), HAPUR

ITA 2963/DEL/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshkuldeep, Vs. Cit(A), Village Kastala, Kasmabad, Nfac, New Delhi Tehsil & District Hapur, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Bumpk4317F Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/03/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

report from the Learned AO. The Learned AO submitted the remand report on 19-2-2018 wherein the Learned AO objected to the admission of additional evidences as sufficient opportunities were given by him to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself and none of the notices were

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

respect of taxes paid in China by its liaison offices. The assessee also filed an application for admission of additional evidence. The assessee submitted that it maintains three liaison offices in China, namely at Shenzhen, Guangzhou and Keqiao, which primarily function as communication channels for the principal place of business

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3510/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"D\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT &\nSHRI MAKARAND

ELITE MINING CORPORATION,YAMUNANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 Y. NAGAR, YAMUNANAGAR

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1465/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1465/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Elite Mining Corporation Ito Ward-1 Khasra No. 17, 23, 24, Gumthala/21, Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. Tehsil – Radaur, Yamuna Nagar Haryana 135001 Haryana - 135001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffe-4352-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Kartik Thapar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 09-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 18-09-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 20-03-2024. Upon Perusal Of Orders Of Lower Authorities, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Has Failed To Make Any Effective Representation Before Both The Lower Authorities. The Returned

For Appellant: Sh. Kartik Thapar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 144

lower authorities. The returned income of Rs.5.39 Lacs has ultimately been assessed at Rs.488.68 Lacs after certain additions. The Ld. AR sought admission of additional evidences u/r 29 of ITAT Rule, 1963 and stated that the assessee was in the process of collecting and compiling these documents. The same would

PRATIBHA ARVIND SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8658/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16 Pratibha Arvind Shah Vs. Ito Ward-42(1)(4), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mumbai A Wing 701 Sat Kripa Chs, Prem Nagar Bldg No 6, Prem Nagar Above Bank Of Baroda, Borivali West Mumbai-400092 Pan: Bpups9560P

Section 147Section 250

additional evidences on the ground that the assessee had not filed an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 seeking admission of additional evidence and accordingly confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has filed

KETANKUMAR THAKORBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 PREVIOUSLY WARD-3,, ANAND

ITA 2152/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B T Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 80C

explained source and hence the same may be allowed and be deleted now. 4. The Learned CIT-Appeals, (NFAC) has rejected the admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A which are relevant in deciding the appeal which is against the principle of natural justice. 5. The order passed

Showing 1–20 of 1,576 · Page 1 of 79

...