← 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

Saini Co-Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-48(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4261/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessment order to be amenable to revision inasmuch as such interest was not offered for taxation. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee is admittedly a credit

Saini Co-Operative Tharift and Credit Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-48(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4260/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

assessment order to be amenable to revision inasmuch as such interest was not offered for taxation. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions through virtual court and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee is admittedly a credit

Valaka Engineering Private Limited, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle – 20, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 3932/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yash Mehta, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 27(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

this issue. Therefore, penalty on addition of Rs. 5,69,700/- is hereby confirmed. ” 6. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard rival contentions and, gone throughthe evidences of the case. Now, before us, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed additional evidences along with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Global Agro Corp, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4544/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Global Agro Corp, Room No.1704, Plot No.07,1St Floor, E-2 Block, Central Market West Civic Centre, Avenue Road, New Delhi-110002. West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. Pan-Aakfg2650A Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Nitin Gulati, Ca Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of 21.11.2025 Pronouncement Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-15/10990/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act,1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In Export Of Rice & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 66,28,650/-. The Case Was Selected Through Cass & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee From Time To Time, Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Vide Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2019 Wherein Following Additions Were Made:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

vide order dated 19.07.2024, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provision

Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Farm No.14, 8Th Avenue, Radhey Circle-13(1), Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, New Delhi New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcj1500C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

vide impugned order dated 31.07.2024, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

Harish Kumar Singh, Greater Noida vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Bulandshahr

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

ITA 1501/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarharish Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (2), A – 70, Sector P – 3, Bulandshahr. Greater Noida – 201 308 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan :Awkps2738M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate Shri Akash Ojha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Registry Has Pointed Out A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal, However, The Appeal Filed Through Online On 30.05.2022 Against The Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Registry has pointed out a delay of 28 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, however, the appeal filed through online on 30.05.2022 against the order 2 of ld. CIT (A) dated 31.03.2022. He submitted that the appeal

Harihar Prasad, Patna vs. ITO Ward 4 (4), Patna

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

ITA 268/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54BSection 54FSection 96

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 08.08.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the order passed by the appellate commissioner dated 08.08.2023 under section ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 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. The Ld. AR submitted that proper representation was ITA No.: 268/PAT/2023 Assessment Year

Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Navsari

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

ITA 1007/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

failed to submit ground-wise written submission with supporting evidences. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR for the assessee filed written submission and a paper book containing various details including copies of audit report, month- wise

Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd, Jalgoan vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jalgaon

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

ITA 2012/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: PendingITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Prem Grain Industries Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle – 1, Jalgaon E 2/1, Midc Area, Ahjantha Vs. Road, Jalgaon – 425003 Pan: Aadcp9598E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Anchaliya Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 01.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For The Following Issue: “Whether Unsecured Loans Are Genuine & From Disclosed Sources.”

For Appellant: Shri Suresh AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 5 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred

Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1502/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Ito, Ward 1(1), Nashik Flat No.8, Pooja Apartment, Vs. Shivam Nagar, Hirawadi, Panchavati, Nashik – 422003 Pan: Aghpb1619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi (Through Virtual) Department By : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153CSection 68

NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 44 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation ... upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 for A.Y 2016-17 was issued

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Pune vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 857/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.857/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Pune. Vs. Shravani Land Private Limited, Utkarsha, Plot No.14, Yogi Arbindo Society, Sahakar Nagar-2, Pune- 411009. Pan : Aalcs1473M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manish Kumar Sinha Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 2,43,35,511/-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Sinha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed from the side of the assessee despite due service

Radhanagar Cold Stores Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 777/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 777/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Radhanagar Cold Stores Pvt. Limited,...……Appellant 161, Rajakatra Building, 1St Floor, Netaji Subha Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aabcr5647N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-9(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Palash Chttopadhyay, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 36(1)(ii)

Limited addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer of Rs.4,54,966/- is confirmed. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds: (1) That the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the action

Glorious Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2124/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2124/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Glorious Holdings Private Ltd, Vs Ito Ward-2(1), Kolkata C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, S.N.Bannerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700013 Pan No. :Aaccg 4244 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deep Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Dipu Koley, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

been diligent in its tax affairs. This being so, we are of the view that the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal is not liable to be condoned and consequently the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on account of delay not being condoned

Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Tirupati Timbers & Packaging P. Limited,…Appellant Room No. 563, Marshall House, 33/1, N.S. Road, Dalhousie, G.P.O., Kolkata-700001, W.B. [Pan:Aabct2720Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Girdhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: September 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

Thereafter he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 92 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 ... under the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds: Ground - 1: That the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was not justified in confirming the additions of unsecured loan

Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 672/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 68

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.: 672/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank. “1) That the Learned CIT (Appeal ... filed by the appellant is treated as Dismissed.” 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. The Ld. AR drew our attention to page 2 para

Test Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2512/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2512/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Test Jewellery Pvt. Limited,…...……...……Appellant 9/12, Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Lal Bazar Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aacct8724B] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-4(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Tibrewal & Shri Souravh Gupta, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmoy Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 20, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)

Appeals), he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 225 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

M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 32/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.: 32 & 141/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Estin ... partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee as well as the Revenue have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the details filed have been examined. We will take

A.C.I.T., Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Estin Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the two cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 50C(1)Section 55A

were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA Nos.: 32 & 141/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Estin ... partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee as well as the Revenue have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the details filed have been examined. We will take

Sneha Binoy Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5007/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Smit C. Jhaveri, CA a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra- CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

condonation of delay and held the appeal to be not admitted, vide order dated 11.12.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, ld. AR requested before us that one more opportunity be given to the assessee as the delay and non compliance

Income Tax Officer 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Micro Plantae Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, CA a/w MsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

appeal was allowed by the ld. CIT(A) after considering additional evidences filed by the assessee. Aggrieved, th e revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, ld. AR submitted that an application under rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules has been filed