← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

ITA 669/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer relied only on 7. general investigation reports without bringing any direct evidence linking

THE SIMALIYA DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

ITA 2442/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 270ASection 69C

perused the material available on record. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 284 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining that the assessee being a rural milk

ANILKUMAR RAMANBHAI AMIN,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2417/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

therein appears to be genuine. Hence, the delay is condoned. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal without ensuring any notice to the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted

JIVANBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL,UNJHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, PATAN

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2196/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P F Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 199

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay along with Affidavit. The reasons stated by the assessee appears to be genuine, hence, the delay is condoned

DE vs. THAN TRUST,VADODARAVS.THE ITO, WARD- EXEMPTION, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agarwal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

delay was not sufficiently explained by the assesee trust. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR has filed the date chart which is as under: Devasthan Trust Sr. No. Particulars Date

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. FAIRDEAL SUPPLIERS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect

ITA 420/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.420/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Acit Fairdeal Suppliers Limited बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) 4Th Floor V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Shalin Building Nr. Nehru Bridge Ashram Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 2878 C (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09 /04/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09 /04/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 268A

below Rs.60 lakhs, therefore, by virtue of recent CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.9.2024, Department has been instructed not to file appeal before the Tribunal, where tax effect is below Rs.60 lakhs. This instruction is applicable to the pending cases also. Therefore, the present appeal of the Revenue

RAJESHKUMAR KANTILAL PUJARA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1957/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.56,86,455/-, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The facts revealed that the total

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 45/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

frame. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other On the facts and in the circumstances ... under: 14. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 44/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

frame. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other On the facts and in the circumstances ... under: 14. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 43/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

frame. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other On the facts and in the circumstances ... under: 14. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: Each ground is taken without prejudice to each other. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

REGUS SOUTH MUMBAI BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6104/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarregus South Mumbai Dcit - 14(1)(2), Business Centre Mumbai Private Limited, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. Level 4, Dynasty K. Road, New Marine Business Park, Andheri Lines. Mumbai- Kurla Road, J. B. Nagar 400 020 S.O, Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr6068H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. Ar Revenue By Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2026

Section 143(3)

also confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and has raised the following grounds: 1. Ground No. 1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KOMA SINGHAL, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 278/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein all the Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are with respect to the deletion of addition of INR 94,55,000/- made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, RAJPUR ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. SANDEEP SANGHAL, KANWLI ROAD, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 277/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Sandeep Sanghal Central Circle, 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Dehradun Nursery, Kanwali Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent C.O.Nos.1 & 3/Ddn/2026 [In Ita No. 277/Ddn/2025] [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Sandeep Sanghal Vs Dcit 7, Ram Bagh, Near Anurag Central Circle, Nursery, Kanwali Road, Dehradun Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aueps1161Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2020-21] Dcit Vs Koma Singhal Central Circle, Village-Biasnehri, Haripur, Dehradun Kalsi Gate, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-248001 Pan-Bnips9413F Appellant Respondent

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein all the Grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are with respect to the deletion of addition of INR 94,55,000/- made

S.S. JAIN SABHA GOLF LINK, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, JALANDHAR

ITA 482/ASR/2024[24-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

been any spending on any religious activity so far as it is evident from the financial statement. 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in the memorandum of appeal which are as follows: “1) The appellant society was formed in the year

VIJAY KOTHARI,INDORE vs. DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 267/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250

Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 12.01.2023 Commissioner (Appeals) Bhopal. 2. That the time for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal was to expire on 13.03.2023 Page 3 of 25 Vijay Kothari ITA No.267/Ind/2024 Α.Υ.:2015-16 3. The 1 son of delay

TIRUPATHI ARSAM,MANCHERIAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MANCHERIAL

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

ITA 1531/HYD/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1531/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tirupathi Arsam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mancherial Ward-1 Pan:Agypa4706B Mancherial (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Suresh A, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Suresh A, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 69A

assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit filed along with the condonation petition, the assessee has stated that the appeal before the Tribunal was required to be filed ... Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. As already noted, none appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is being disposed of ex-parte

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3175/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3174/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

MD. BABAR ALI,MALDA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(1), MALDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3173/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 dated 18.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 3173/KOL/2025: “1. Order Bad in Law: That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated ... result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 dated 09.10.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, unjust ... result, the appellant's appeal is Partly allowed.” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was heard with the assistance

Showing 1–20 of 16,033 · Page 1 of 802

...
appeal before the tribunal — 16,033 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax