← 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

Chinnaraju Ramesh, Chennai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward 15(1), Chennai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3272/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Janarthanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

appeal in limine without condoning the delay of 194 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Thangavel, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 10(3) Che, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/CHNY/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3207/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate for Mr. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 69A

further appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the notices. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The assessee through Ground No.3 has raised a legal contention that the notice u/s.148 dated

Govindan Gnanavel, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3202/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Act which is dated

S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3172/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

addition made by the A.O towards profits of the society to the tune of Rs. 2,32,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

S 1284, Thathaiyangarpatty Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

ITA 3171/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3171 & 3172/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S 1284 Thathaiyangarpatty Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Vs. Ward-2, Society Ltd., Namakkal. Karaikuruchipudur P.O., Namakkal – 637 018. Pan: Aagas 9153H

For Appellant: Mr. A. Tamilamudan, C.A ,-For Respondent: Ms. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69ASection 80P

addition made by the A.O towards profits of the society to the tune of Rs. 2,32,000/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 38 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

Vimal Trading Company, Madurai vs. Non Corporate Cirle - 1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2958/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 37(1)

Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the A.O. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the A.O did not reject the books of accounts

Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2922/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2864 & 2922/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N. CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

audit report are not correct on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated the said claim. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Kkr India Asset Finance Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2881/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2881/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C.N. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

same the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.” KKR India Asset Finance Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: 4. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized

Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2019-20 & 2020-21 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2864/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2864 & 2922/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N. CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

audit report are not correct on the ground that the assessee has not substantiated the said claim. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative

Ramakkonar Balakrishnan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 2006/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: 21.01.2026
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

appeal again on 17.07.2025 before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 5. The ld.AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal by referring to the Affidavit and prayed for one more opportunity to the assessee. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that there ... considered opinion that the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1,143 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the condonation petition is rejected. Since the delay is not condoned, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine as barred

Smita Suresh Janwalkar, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsmita Suresh Janwalkar Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(1), Bldg No 168 Panchaganga It-Office, Vasi Railway Station Chs, Pantnagar, Ghatkopar E, Building, Thane, Mumbai-400075. Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan/Gir No: Bbqpj2341M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(x)

above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 3. There is delay of 196 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant has filed an affidavit and stated that she was not technologically very 2 Smita Suresh Janwalkar conversant and does not regularly access ... agreed with the findings of AO and dismissed the appeal. 3 Smita Suresh Janwalkar 5. Further aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ex-parte order of CIT(A) is against the principles

Bipinkumar Manilal Thakor, Gandhinagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhinagar, Udyog Bhavan

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

ITA 1908/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Hardav Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. D.R
Section 10(1)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 276CSection 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 5. There is a delay of 739 days in filing the present appeal before the tribunal for which the assessee filed detailed affidavit. The reasons given by the assessee for delay in filing the appeal appears to be genuine, hence delay

A-One Leathers, Chennai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 4148/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 4148/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. A-One Leathers, The Assistant Commissioner No.15/8, Vepery High Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Periamet, Non-Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai – 600 003. Chennai. Pan: Aaafa 4576H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Anandh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2026 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 14.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised Read As Follows:- :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aroon Praasad, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

dated 12.05.2022, the AO had passed rectification order on 22.11.2022) 9. Aggrieved by the FAA’s order dated 25.09.2024, the assessee firm filed appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised before the ITAT read as follows:- “1. To set aside the order u/s 250 dated 25/09/2024 passed by the National

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3084/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y 2012-13. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. During the course

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Olympia Tech Park (Chennai) Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16

ITA 3081/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3081 & 3084/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Choradia, C.A ()For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80I

placing reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A.Y 2012-13. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. During the course

M/S. Dinesh Textile Mills, Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Tiruppur

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

ITA 3062/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3062/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Suraj Nahar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

raised a ground (ground No.5) praying that the receipts from sale of MLFS scrip be allowed as exempted income. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising a contention that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the said ground. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material

Karthi Venkatachalam, Dindigul vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-2, Madurai

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

ITA 2192/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2192/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Karthi Venkatachalam, The Deputy Commissioner M2/27, 4Th Cross, R.M. Colony, Vs. Of Income Tax, Dindigul – 624 001 Non-Corporate Circle 2, Madurai Pan: Arppk 5742D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri A.G. Sathyanarayana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2026 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 06.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Servicing As An :- 2 -: Agent/Distributor To Itc Products, Running Restaurant As A Franchisee To Adayar Ananda Bhawan & Also Running A Petrol Bunk On Behalf Of Bpcl. For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income On 13.02.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.49,50,380/-. The Assessment Was Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The Act On 13.05.2024. Subsequently, The Ao Completed The Reassessment Vide Order Dated 04.03.2025. The Ao Made Addition Of Rs.3,22,511/- U/S.69A R.W.S.115Bbe Of The Act & Making Adhoc Disallowance Of 20% Expenditure Of Rs.6,96,350/- Since Same Was Not Verifiable (Disallowance Of Rs.1,39,271/-).

For Appellant: Shri A.G. SathyanarayanaFor Respondent: Shri A.T. Krishnamoorthy, Addl.CIT
Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Rs.2,22,511/- and confirmed the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.1,39,271/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had given only partial response to the show-cause notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, it was submitted

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Vapi vs. Kaushik Ramlal Patel, Gidc Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

deleted. Accordingly, Ground No.1 is allowed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and submitted that: i. The assessee failed to produce evidence during assessment proceedings

Parshuram Bindhnath Roy, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2) Previously Ward- 3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 1652/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleparshuram Bindhnath Roy, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 404, Atlantis Heights, Opp. Ward 3(1)(2), Vadiwadi Fire Station, Sarabhai Vadodara Main Road, Nr. Genda Circle, Vadodara-390023 [Pan : Ahdpr 3553 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ca Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 19.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02.03.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 250Section 69A

Bindhnath Roy Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2017-18 - 3– 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee acted merely as a mediator and the deposits represented reimbursement amounts from students

Jyoti Shroff, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 2278/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

With regard to the merits of the matter, the CIT(A) held it in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the revenue was on appeal before the Tribunal and cross-objection was filed by the assessee questioning that portion of the order of the CIT(A) which held that there