← 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

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or an appeal to the Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition ... deletes or reduces the addition made on account of concealed income and the Department takes up the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. Sometimes, a final decision on the quantum of the concealed income becomes available only after the expiry of the two years time-limit. 18. Section

3K Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 2-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 62/HYD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 15(9)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

The Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University, Chennia vs. Income- Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 833/CHNY/2026[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:833/Chny/2026 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Tamil Nadu Dr. The Income Tax Officer Ambedkar Law University, Vs. (Exemptions), No.5, Poompozhil Campus, Ward 1, Dr. Dgs Dinakaran Salai, Chennai. Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadat 3528N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Ann Mary Baby, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Pune Order Dated 27.01.2026 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2019-20 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms. Ann Mary Baby, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(3)Section 250

u/s.154 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of FAA, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has raised multiple grounds. One of the grounds raised namely, Ground No.2 reads as follows: :- 3 -: “Rectification u/s 154 passed without

Rameshkumar Kandasamy, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Tiruppur

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

ITA 3257/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ramesh Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, 627/1, Hallmark Knit Fabs, Vs. Ward 2 (1), Rakkiyapalayam, Tiruppur Kangeyam Road, Tiruppur – 641 606. Pan: Ahhpr 4639J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.S.P. Sri Harini, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 02.09.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Order Passed By The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To Five Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Ms.S.P. Sri Harini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

stating that assessee has not filed any evidence to controvert the findings made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had submitted all details with regard to the claim of agricultural income. However

Parameshappa Shiddlingappa Kittad, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 2463/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT(DR)
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

therefore the learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. 9.1 The learned DR further pointed out that the present appeal before the Tribunal has also been filed with delay. According to the learned DR, the conduct of the assessee shows a continued pattern of negligence

Mobil Trust Series 06, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - (1)(1), Thane

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed and all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 7559/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan &For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 115TSection 142(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

contention of the Assessee, we hold that in the present case the Assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed time and therefore, we condone the delay of 172 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate

V Y Institute of Medical Science Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 480/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

advisor Shri Vikas K. Jian, there was not only non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) but also failed to file appeal before the Tribunal within prescribed time limit, the Ld. AR submitted. The Ld. AR prayed for condonation of the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. To which

Sri Durga Commercials, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 3092/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

Delhi vide order dated 07/06/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 485 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. We have considered ... perused the materials placed on record. It is seen that the appellate order under section 250 was passed on 07.06.2024. The appeal before the Tribunal ought to have been filed within the prescribed time. However, the present appeal has been filed on 29.12.2025, resulting in a delay of 485 days

Mamatha Mahesh Shetty, Chikkamagaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur

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

ITA 2382/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 250

appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 03.05.2022. The order under section 250 of the Act was passed on 06.01.2025. The present appeal before the Tribunal came to be filed on 27.08.2025, resulting in a delay of 210 days. 3.1 The reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 7479/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2019-20 Portescap India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, Tower Ii, Income Tax, Seepz Sez, Vs. Circle-2(3)(1), Andheri East, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Seepz S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400096. M.K.Road, Pan : Aaack4896K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi A/W. Shri Lekh Mehta, For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 43B

also confirmed. It was submitted that against the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee moved an appeal before the Tribunal and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dt. 19-11-2024 has allowed the assessee‟s appeal since the AO had already nullified the demand

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

afresh after making requisite enquiries and proper verification with regard to taxability of interest on enhanced compensation. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

dismissed the appeal. 12. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor vs. ITO 13. I have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

before the CIT(A) but without success. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, it is noticed from the record that there is a delay of 150 days in filing the appeal before

Progressive Constructions Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

assessee. 6 ITA.No.625/Hyd./2025 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Pr. CIT, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued show cause notice u/sec.143(2) dated

N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

assessee and upheld the penalty levied by the AO. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1254/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 2345 days in filing the above appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period ... other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that, the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature. He, therefore submitted that, the delay condonation

Mvr Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(4), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1253/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Filed Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Affidavits Explaining The Reasons Contending, Inter Alia, That The Appeal Could Not Be Filed Within The Period Of Limitation Due To Miscommunication & Misguidance With The Appointed Learned Counsel Regarding The Case Proceedings To The Assessee. Further, The Appellant, Relied Entirely On The Learned Counsel & The Company'S Internal Accounting Staff For Updates & Developments, Was Under The Bona Fide Impression That The Proceedings Were Being Diligently Pursued & Attended. In Addition To That, The Part Time Accountant, Mr. Pedditi Gopal Reddy Who Was Managing The Accounts Of The Appellant'S Company & Dealt With Appointed Counsel Unfortunately Fell Gravely Ill During The Covid-19 Pandemic Period & Passed Away Which Led To A Breakdown In The Flow Of Communication Between The Assessee & Their Legal Representative. The Assessee Only

For Appellant: Srinavya Adabala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 253(3)

ITA.No.1253/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 2345 days in filing the above appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay along with affidavits explaining the reasons contending, inter alia, that the appeal could not be filed within the period ... other hand, strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that, the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature. He, therefore submitted that, the delay condonation

Gopal Reddy Gattu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1011/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 143(3)Section 263

arise during the course of the hearing.” 3. At the outset, there is a delay of 70 days in filing the captioned appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons that, the impugned order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed ... revising the assessment made under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 26.12.2022. As against the said order, he was required to file an appeal before the Tribunal within the statutory period of 60 days, i.e., on or before 31.03.2025. However, the appeal was e-filed on 09.06.2025, resulting

Madan Mohan Rao Puvvada, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

appeal may be condoned. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has vehemently objected for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and submitted that the impugned order is digitally signed and therefore, there is no need of certified copy of the same when

Zaheer Ahmed Syed, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

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

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

sustained both the additions made by the A.O. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue that came up for our consideration from Ground No. 2 of assessee's appeal is disallowance of claim of deduction