← All Phrases

“appeal before the tribunal”

AppealsSection 253Section 25316,033 judgments

The decision most relied on for appeal before the tribunal is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), cited in 2,267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on appeal before the tribunal

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
389 ITR 326 · 2016 · High Court
241
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate additional grounds of appeal if they are legal in nature or go to the root of the matter, even if not raised before lower authorities or filed belatedly.

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
1 SCC 591 · 1985 · Reported
225
citing judgments

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

Otters Club v. DIT
392 ITR 244 · 2017 · High Court
202
citing judgments

The Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days.

CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co Ltd.
81 ITR 303 · 1971 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Income received by an assessee for services rendered to an Indian company may not be taxable, particularly when the Revenue does not contest its non-taxability. This principle aligns with CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which has been approved by the Supreme Court.

Shivsagar Veg Restaurant v. ACIT
317 ITR 433 · 2009 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Orders that are inordinately delayed are liable to be recalled and heard afresh, and the Appellate Tribunal President should frame guidelines for timely disposal of appeals.

Judgments citing appeal before the tribunal

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO 22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 964/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 964/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Pawan Kumar Agarwal,………….………...……Appellant P-912, Lake Town, Block-A, Kolkata-700089, West Bengal [Pan:Acvpa3110A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-22(2), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 139(1)Section 69A

sustained the addition holding the service of notice and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not adjudicated the issues on merit

Mohammad Naushad, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 900/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and prayed for condonation of delay. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR has also not objected to condone the delay. In view of the above and considering the contention of the assessee stated in the affidavit, the delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 44A

stating therein that the order of the ld. CIT(A) was communicated belatedly for which delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal has arisen. It has also been submitted by the assessee that the delay is neither deliberate nor intention but occurred due to circumstances

Gopal Krishan Maharwal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1823/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1823/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Gopal Krishan Maharwal,…………………..…Appellant 3, Pratap Ghosh Lan, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aespm6895H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-43(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 147

Appeals), he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 74 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that

Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1790/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1790/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-37(1), Kolkata 123/2, A.P.C.Road, Manicktala Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Acupj 2854 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rip Das, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09.06.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Transaction U/S.69C Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.10.2018 For The A. Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,49,390/-. The Ao Had Received Information That The Assessee Was One Of The Beneficiary Of Bogus Transactions Made In The Form Of Fictitious Purchases & Bogus Billing From The Parties Like Hiraani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd; Niraj Nathani To The Tune Of Rs.14,50,800/- During The F.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Was The Recipient Of Irregular Input Tax Credit Amounting To Rs.14,50,800/-During The Fy 2017-18 Relevant To The A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

also upheld the view taken by the AO. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee mainly trading in metals scrap materials. The assessee had shown purchases to an extent of Rs.14,50,800/- from M/s. Hiraani Suppliers

Asha Agarwal L/H of Late Arun Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T./ A.C.I.T. - 46, Kolkata

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

ITA 1770/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1770/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Asha Agarwal,……….……………..…………..…Appellant (Legal Heir Of Late Arun Agarwal), 2/8B, Sarat Bose Road, Classica Apartment, Flat No. 6B, Kolkata-700020, W.B. [Pan:Acepa2928D] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit-46, Kolkata,………………....…..Respondent 3, Government Place West, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 144BSection 147

approached another new tax consultant to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on her part. Therefore, she pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. Bluediamond Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1752/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Maheshwari, ACAFor Respondent: None
Section 14A

assessee. In the appellate proceedings, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the view taken by the Assessing Officer. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR submitted that the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2014-2015. It was submitted that the audit report of the assessee

Sri Hari Prasad Agarwal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1617/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Sri Hari Prasad Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-46(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adapa 9125 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.05.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Only Ground Argued By The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Made By The Ao U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Sale Proceeds Received By The Assessee On Sale Of Shares. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Ay 2015-16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 4,29,970. The Assessee In Pursuance To Notice U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaire Submitted Required Details & Documents As Sought By The Assessing Officer (Ao). During The Fy 2014-15 The Assessee Sold Quoted

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

also dismissed the appeal of the assessee thereby upholding the view taken by the AO. 5. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR submitted that in course of assessment the AO had disbelieved the assessee’s claim for the deduction claimed u/s.10

Vikas Nahata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 44(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1589/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Vikas Nahata,……..……………….………...……Appellant 1St Floor, Prn House, Burrabazar, 177, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Abppn4488D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-44(2), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

immediately approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay in the appeal. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view ... made the addition of Rs.4,74,000/- without going into the merits of the case. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of 3 Vikas Nahata

Manish Ray & Co., Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1545/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Basu & Ms. Paramita BasuFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Tribunal within the time. The moment the assessee came to know about passing of the appellate order, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 139 days, which is not found to be false. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 139 days in filing ... preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR submitted that the in the assessment order the Assessing Officer has disallowed 30% of the labour payments. It was also

Seikh Kamaluddin, Paschim Midnapur vs. ITO, Ward 38(2), Midnapur

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

ITA 1374/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1374/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Seikh Kamaluddin,………………….……...……Appellant Nekarbag Tatarpur, Chandrakona, Paschim Midnapure-721242, West Bengal [Pan:Btwpk5866J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-38(2), Midnapur, Amaravati, 1St Floor, Keranitola, Raja N.L. Khan Road, Paschim Medinipur-721101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Promit Majumdar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 21, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 144

inefficiency and approached another ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 330 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and there was no deliberate lapse or negligence on his part. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts

Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1361/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, Cr.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adrpg 5357 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-27, Dated 05.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days. Though The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Condonation Application Nor Any Affidavit, However, Looking To The Facts Of The Case & The Issue Involved Therein, I Am Of The View That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Deserves To Be Condoned, Which Has Also Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Jewellery. 4. Facts In Brief Are That Are That The Assessee Had Filed Original Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Sen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B

appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has also confirmed the addition made by the AO. 6. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR submitted that there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 25.09.2020 in the course of search jewellery

Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1298/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1298/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Sriyans Enterprises Limited, Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 22, Brb Basu Road, 1St Floor, Room No.14, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaics 4667 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 13.11.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Belated By 136 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Sufficient Reasons For Delay. The Contents Of The Application Are As Under :- Before The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench Ref: Appeal Petition Filed On: In The Matter Of : - An Application For Condonation Of The Delay In Filing The Memorandum Of Appeal Against The Appellate Order Dated 13-11- 2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-2017; & In The Matter Of The :- A Memorandum Of Appeal Filed Under The Income Tax Act, 1961; & In The Matter Of: -

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Dugar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

found that the delay is owing to the circumstances beyond the control of 4 the assessee for which the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal within the time. Accordingly, I condone the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal and the appeal of the assessee ... before the ld.CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5 6. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal :- 1. For that, the Ld. Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without discussing the points of determination, decision

Sahara Welfare Foundation, Kolkata vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1492/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 1l

Bench rejected the same as the same was without any valid reason and the appeal was heard. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by the CIT (A) is void ab initio in as much as no opportunity ... maximum marginal rate. 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. In respect of Ground No. 1, the Ld. DR argued that the notice of hearing

Chandra Panneerselvam, Vellore vs. PCIT., Chennai

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

ITA 91/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.91/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Chandra Pannerselvam, Principal Commissioner Of Income No.2/2, Old Munsif Court Street, Tax, Saidapet, Vellure, Circle-1, Tamil Nadu - 632 012. Vellore. [Pan: Aahpp9253B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.N.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 1326 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee, a senior citizen, has pleaded that the part period of the delay is attributable to the Covid

Dinesh Kumar and Sons, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2511/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2511/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Dinesh Kumar & Sons The Income Tax Officer, (Huf), Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 5(1), No.41, M.S.Koil Street, Chennai. Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. Pan: Aamhr 9861G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Hitesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 134 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee Trust has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing

Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Haliyal, Haliyal vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

ITA 1186/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Vs. Pcit, Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Hubli. Near Mlc Office, Bus Stand Road, Haliyal – 581 329, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 9684 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

earned from FDs / reserve fund, liquidity assets with Co- operative Banks. 3. Aggrieved from the Order of learned Pr.CIT, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the AO and learned Pr.CIT and submitted that interests received are eligible for deduction under section

M/S. D.S Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4778/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2023-24)

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle Hariya & Ms SrutiFor Respondent: Shri Annaravan Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

also followed discretionary method of granting monthly remuneration. This Ground of appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.” 3.4 Further aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted a copy of the registered partnership deed dated 26.06.2019 to demonstrate that the remuneration has been paid

Mona Sanjay Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1062/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri D C Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

support of various grounds of appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld. AR has submitted a paperbook containing relevant documents and has explained that no proper compliance could be made

Mukeshkumar Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 6694/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2014-15)

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same vide order dated 22.10.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee could not file requisite documentary evidences before the ld. AO, which have

Dsv Air & Sea Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cirle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3653/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 253Section 254(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

under section 144C(13) of the Act. Aggrieved by the addition / adjustment on account of transfer pricing adjustment, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submission of Ld.Authorised Representative of the assessee (Ld.AR) and the learned Senior Departmental representative