“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Goenka Rockwool India Private Limited, Raipur

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

ITA 453/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.453/Rpr/2025 Co No. 18/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

purchases was deleted by the 3 Goenka Rockwool India Pvt. Ltd. CO No.18/RPR/2025 Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, against which, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. It has been vehemently contended by the Ld. Sr. DR that while giving relief to the assessee, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC

Shri Prakash Bhikhabhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. The ITO, NFAC Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is partly allowed, to the extent indicated above

ITA 412/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.412/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Prakash Bhikhabhai Thakkar Vs. Income Tax Department, C/O. "Krushna House", 3Rd National Faceless Floor, Assessment B/H. Alishan Flats, Centre, Near Raiya Telephone Delhi 110001 Exchange, Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afjpt6621C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Kapuria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 73 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned DR for the revenue did not raise serious objection about condonation of delay. A perusal of the affidavit gives ... revenue and unproved purchases. 5. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, therefore assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that ad-hoc addition of Rs.1,80,000/-, may be sustained in the hands of the assessee

Urmilaben Prabhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.527/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Urmilaben Prabhubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), बनाम/ 378/1/2, Nishar Faliya, Puna Surat, Room # 613, Aayakar Vs. Gam, Nr. Police Chowki, Surat Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 -395 010 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Coipp 7154 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

assessee. ITA No.527/Srt/2025 A.Y 16-17 Urmilaben P Patel 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book containing copies of various notices issued by the AO and relied on the decision

Anjana Enterprise, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 460/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.460/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 (Hybrid Hearing) Anjana Enterprise Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(1), बनाम/ 306-A, Centre Point Ring Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Road, Nr.Kadhiwala School, Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahfa 6635 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Anil K. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

dismissed the appeal. ITA No.460/Srt/2025 A.Y 11-12 Anjana Enterprise 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed affidavit from the ex-partner of M/s Anjana Enterprises deposing that they have not received contract amount of Rs.55

Late Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Kahar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vapi

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

ITA 45/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Lt.Chimanlal Jerambhai Bhagat Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ Legal Heir Minaxi Rakeshbhai Vapi -396 191 Vs. Kahar, Flat No.104, Lake Castle, Pal, Nr. Jainam, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb 6752 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mukesh Mandowara, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54B

days. The son and legal heir of the deceased-assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. He submitted that the appellate order dated 28.02.2024 was sent e-mail id of his late father who had expired on 20.07.2021. The legal heir ... proceedings started and the personnel from Income-tax department visited their house, he came to know about the order and immediately file the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control

Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward 1, Navsari

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

ITA 384/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavin Maheshkumar Desai, Vs. Ito, Sanjay Farm, Talav Chora, Dist – Ward – 1, Navsari, Chikhli - 396321 Navsari "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajepd7118B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

days in terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the affidavit, the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) passed order on 17.07.2023 but the order was not served through physical mode ... know about the outstanding demand pertaining to quantum and penalty, he consulted with Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, who advised him to file an appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the delay was unintentional, bonafide and assessee was prevented by sufficient cause

Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.357/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Laxmiben Narayan Chaute Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(3), बनाम/ Plot No.2, Ambica Society 2, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Vs. Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abfpc 0082 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Manish J Shah, Ar राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the assessee and others in ITA Nos.383-

Gaurava Mishra, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(8), Surat

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

ITA 104/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250

novo adjudication and set aside the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted paper books containing 204 pages, which include various details and documents. He submitted that the same

Reva Enterprise, Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 414/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.259, 380 & 414/Srt/2024 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Reva Enterprises, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer, Vs. Plot No. 50, Gandhi Market, Ward – 2(4), Rajpipla Road, Ankleshwar, Bharuch Sarangpore, Narmada - 393001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aanfr8509E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज"कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke (Sr. Dr) With Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

rate of taxation as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee has submitted a paper book containing copy of partnership deed of M/s Reva Enterprise

Reva Enterprise, Narmada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

Reva Enterprise, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Bharuch

In the result, ITA No.259/SRT/2024 is partly allowed, ITA No

ITA 259/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 69A

Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 1044/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1044/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Chimanbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Income Tax Officer , Ward-1(3)(6), बनाम/ S. No.3/2, Koliwad, Adajan Income-Tax Office, Anavil Business Vs. Gam, Adajan, Surat-395 009 Centre, Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afypp 4446 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 606 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee submitted that CIT(A) passed order on 14.12.2022 but did not supply the physical copy of the order. He was unaware ... delay was no intentional and deliberate. The assessee was unaware of the appellate order due to which he was unable to file appeal before the Tribunal in time. Hence, there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing this appeal. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

stating that addition is based on conjecture and no satisfactory explanation. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), revenue has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the Investigation Wing, Kolkata has identified list of 84 penny stocks used for this scam ... these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessees’ income from undisclosed sources. In ITA 18-2017 also the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 250

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 147Section 234ASection 250

matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. Now, being aggrieved with the Id. CIT (A)'s order, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6. Before us, ground nos.1 & 2 relate to challenging the invalid action and proceedings initiated under section

Ranjit Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Ropar

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

ITA 807/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 807/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ranjit Singh, The Ito, Kiri Afghana Behlolpur बना Warad 2 (2), Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar म Rupnagar 141121 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Gmqps5933A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12-11-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Dated 22.08.2024, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 69

disposal of the same. 3. The Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 233 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Counsel of the Assessee has filed an application along with an Affidavit on behalf of the Assessee, making a prayer for condonation

Pavitar Singh, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 653/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Pavitar Singh, Ito, बना 188, Vuillage Satgoli, Nwr-W-(65)(95) Bhagu Majra, Chandigarh म Jadadhri, Yamunanagar Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bteps4094J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rachit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

Appeals), NFAC, dated 10/03/2025, for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. We find that the present appeal is a second round of appeal before the Tribunal. In the first round, this Tribunal has remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer 2 with the direction as reproduced

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. ITO, Sunam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

also held the reassessment to be bad in law on jurisdictional ground. Against the order of the AAC the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal and specifically raised the plea that the question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment having been expressly given up by the assessee

Jankey Polymers, Barotiwala vs. Income Tax Officer, Baddi

ITA 239/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 239/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jankey Polymers, The Ito, Khatoni No.210/213, बना Baddi Khasra No. 482, म Village Tirpa Vs. Hadbest No. 195 Barotiwala, Himachal Pradesh 174103 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ptlji1625F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh Ravinder Sharma, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17-11-2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Dated 17.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh Ravinder Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Against the said confirmation of addition made by the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR has submitted that the addition confirmed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs. 40 lacs

Dasha Modh Sajan Maha Mandal, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the applicant trust is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 522/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R

Section 12ASection 282ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

application of the applicant vide order dated 27-12-2024. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the applicant trust filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the CIT(E) has rejected the application for approval