← 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

Mohhamed Abdul Aziz Khalid, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.65/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2015-2016) Mohammed Abdul Aziz The Asst. Director Of Khalid, Hyderabad. Vs. Income Tax [Intl. Taxn- Pin – 500 036 1], Pan Awwpk9108R Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 147Section 156

appeal of the assessee expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of this order. 7. There is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as the learned DR. The assessee has filed this appeal after

Arulmigu Vaikunda Perumal and Embarswamy Devasthanam, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

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

ITA 2525/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2525/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Arulmiguvaikunda The Income Tax Officer, Perumal & Embarswamy Vs. Exemptions Ward 2, Devasthanam, Chennai. No.01, Sunguvachatram, Sungavachatram S.O, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram – 602 105. Pan: Aafta 4259C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

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

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 43 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

Sri Muthu Agencies, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2507/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2507/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Sri Muthu Agencies, The Income Tax Officer, No.9, 3Rd Cross, Vs. Ward 3, Sri Ramnagar, Puducherry Achariyapuram, Villianur, Puducherry – 605 110. Pan: Achfs 9277N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. There is a delay of 11 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the supporting affidavit stating therein the reasons for belated filing

Dharmesh Girish Dixit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 5622/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 68Section 80C

dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19.06.2025 due to inordinate delay which was not condoned. Against this, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 29.09.2025, the order of ld. CIT(A) has been set aside by the co- ordinate bench. Meanwhile ... inordinate delay after holding that the reasons of delay submitted by the assessee were not convincing. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay. Similar affidavit was filed with regard

Dharmesh Girish Dixit, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 5589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Mr. Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 56Section 68Section 80C

dismissed by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19.06.2025 due to inordinate delay which was not condoned. Against this, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal and vide order dated 29.09.2025, the order of ld. CIT(A) has been set aside by the co- ordinate bench. Meanwhile ... inordinate delay after holding that the reasons of delay submitted by the assessee were not convincing. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay. Similar affidavit was filed with regard

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4801/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P(2)(d)

paragraphs. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal also. Assessee has placed on record, petition for condonation of delay on notarised non-judicial stamp paper dated 08.07.2025. Another affidavit is placed

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4800/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

paragraphs. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal also. Assessee has placed on record, petition for condonation of delay on 6 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend ... facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, to admit the appeal for its adjudication. 6.3. We also do not find any justifiable reasons explained by the assessee for the delay

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4796/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

paragraphs. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal also. Assessee has placed on record, petition for condonation of delay on 6 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend ... facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, to admit the appeal for its adjudication. 6.3. We also do not find any justifiable reasons explained by the assessee for the delay

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4795/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

paragraphs. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal also. Assessee has placed on record, petition for condonation of delay on 6 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend ... facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, to admit the appeal for its adjudication. 6.3. We also do not find any justifiable reasons explained by the assessee for the delay

Vissanji A 1 Friends Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4794/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mehendale (Virtually), CAFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A

paragraphs. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that there is a delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal also. Assessee has placed on record, petition for condonation of delay on 6 4794, 4795,4796,4800 & 4801/MUM/2025 Vissanji A 1 Friend ... facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, to admit the appeal for its adjudication. 6.3. We also do not find any justifiable reasons explained by the assessee for the delay

Lintas India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5889/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Lintas India Private Assessment Unit, Limited, Income Tax Department Or A Wing, 16Th Floor, Deputy Commissioner Of Parinee Crescenzo, Income Tax, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Circle 16(1), Bandra (East), 1) National Faceless Mumbai – 400 051 Assessment Centre (Nafac), Vs. Pan: Aaacl0124F Delhi 2)Aayakar Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.R. Shri Karnik Kansara, Ld. A.R Ms. Neha Rai, Ld. A.R. Ms. Sakshi Chimanani, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.05.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Dispute Resolution Panel-1) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2021-22. 2 M/S. Lintas India Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

order dated 22.08.2024. 9. Therefore, the Assessee being aggrieved challenged the aforesaid addition of Rs.8,32,83,536/- by filing instant appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee, at the outset, has claimed that identical issues with regard to the GSA and GIS services were also cropped up in the previous ... upheld the adjustment by relying on its own order for A.Y. 2015-16. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has done a proper benchmarking in the transfer pricing study with regard to GIS inter- group services, The Ld.AR drew

Neha Gupta, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Gurugram, Haryana

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

ITA 4822/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

filed inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 415 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay. 3.1. In the condonation application, it has been pointed out that the assessee

Infres Methodex Private Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(1), Delhi

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

ITA 449/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Infres Methodex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit Block-B-1, Plot No.D-7, Circle-12(1) Mohan Co-Operative Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Pan-Aabci1964R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rahul Kant, Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-4/10728/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2017, Declaring Total Income At Inr 22,86,60,530/-. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Marketing Of Currency Counting Machines & Verifiers & Paper Shredders Etc. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Has Made The Disallowance Of Inr 22,91,385/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Besides This, The Disallowance Of Inr 14,82,901/- Is Made Out Of Payment Made To Clubs & Inr 31,57,057/- Were Disallowed Out Of Travelling & Conveyance Expenses. The Ao Also Made Addition Of Inr 2,02,76,999/- On Account Of Custom Duty Paid By Holding The Same As Unexplained Expenditure.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 69C

club expenses and further, confirmed the additions towards custom duty paid. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated

Jai Prakash Saini, Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 3996/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Jai Prakash Saini Vs Ito 4240, Arya Pura Sabzi Nfac, New Delhi Mandi, Roshanara Road, New Delhi-110007. Pan-Bbwps4100D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Mohit Bansal, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 69B

vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024, dismissed 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. “That the assessment order passed and assertions made by learned assessing officer are arbitrary unwarranted and contrary

Gayatri Sewa Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee will get relief of INR 90 Lakhs of the loan taken from M/s

ITA 3978/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Gayatri Sewa Sansthan Vs Dcit 155, G.T.Road, Circle-2(1)(1) Panchwati Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad U.P-201001. Pan-Aaatg1960H Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shivam Gupta, Adv. & Deepashree Rao, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of 19.11.2025 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250

order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order dated

Kiran Mahana, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3441/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15 Kiran Mahana Vs. Dcit, Central Circle -27 Trough Legal Heir Ved New Delhi Parkash Mahana,229/39, New Delhi West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008 Pan No. Aippm6862K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69B

vide his order dated 29-01-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. The Ld AR has raised the legal ground no.3. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record

Wheels Polymers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. TDS Ward 78(4), Delhi

ITA 2832/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2024-25 Wheels Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ao, Dsm 212, Dlf Towers 15, Tds Ward 78(4), Najafgarh Road, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi – 110 015. Delhi. Pan : Aaacw0583H

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR
Section 194QSection 200A

confirming the demand made by the Ld. АО. On being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Appellant Company preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for relief on various grounds. 3. On hearing both the sides we find that the impugned order has been passed by the NFAC

Navneet Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 43(7), Delhi

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

ITA 1801/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate, CA Uma UpadhyayFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143Section 68

dispute related to his family business. As such, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. ” 4. Aggrieved, Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee before us now has explained that this amount of Rs. 11 Lakh was withdrawn during the period ... consideration of Rs. 6,47,50,000/-. Therefore, the ground of appeal raised by the appellant is party allowed. ” Aggrieved, Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, Ld. Counsel

Marelli (India) Private Limited, Gurugram vs. Deputy Commissionar of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1136/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh.Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Marelli (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 5Th Floor, Tower 8, Candor Income Tax, Circle 16(1) Teachspace,One Reality Project Cr Building, Delhi It/Ites Sez Village Tikri Sector 48 Gurugram Haryana-122018 Pan No. Aagcm2620K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

result, the appeal of the Appellant is PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 5. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted the concessional rate of tax u/s 115BAA

Satbir Sagwal, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Karnal

ITA 1617/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Satbir, Sagwal C/O Tej Mohan Vs Income Tax, Officer Singh H.No.527, Sector 10D Ward-4 Karnal Haryana Chandigarh 160011 Pan No. Bdops3759N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 20-02-2024 dismissed the appeal, against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. Ld. CIT(A) has observed in his order as under: “6.4 After due consideration of the material on record, the ground-wise discussion