“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

M/S. Achyuta Planatations Pvt. Ltd., Begaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1450/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1449/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Paramjeet Orchardes Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, No. 51, Park View Street, Near Income Tax, Gandhi Road, Alwarthirunagar, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aafcp1203J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1450/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Achyuta Plantations Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, No. 425, 10Th Cross, 18Th Main, Income Tax, Jp Nagar, 2Nd Phase, Jp Nagar, Central Circle 1(2), Bangalore South, Bangalore 560 078. Chennai. [Pan: Aaica7250K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1452/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Ajitabh Orchardes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 61, New No. 125, Audiappan Income Tax, Naicken Street, Elephant Gate, Central Circle 1(2), Sowcarpet, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Chennai. Nagar, Chennai 600 079. [Pan: Aakca9419L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 I.T.A. Nos.1449, 1450, 1452 to 1460/Chny/25 6. The ld. AR Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA submits that the search was conducted

M/S. Paramjeet Orchardes Pvt. Ltd., Tiruvallur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1449/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

27/01/2020 घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 12/02/2020 आदेश /O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE- PRESIDENT Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad dated 19.12.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2009-10. 2. The ld.counsel for the assessee

Shri. Gurulingeshwar Souhard Pattin Sahakari Niyamit Sindagi, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

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

ITA 1565/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 Ms. Shri Gurulingeshwar Souhard Pattin Sahakari Vs. Dcit - 3(3)(1), Niyamit Sindagi, Hmt Building, 1, Main Road, Bangalore. Sindagi – 586 128,Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 1983 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veeranna M Murgod, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Veeranna M Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

basis of materials available before him and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed the entire

B S Somasekhar, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1545/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Bommanayakanahalli Siddaiah Somashekhar, Vs. Ito, #51/4 21St Main, 22Nd Cross, Behind Maruthi Ward – 5(1)(1), Mandira, Vijaynagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 040, Karnataka. Pan : Ainps 4894 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Adarsh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Adarsh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 148Section 2(47)

issue on the basis of documents available before him and dismissed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the statement of facts and submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that it would be double taxation

Kalyani Mukand Limited, Mumbai Narimanpoint vs. ITO3(2)(3), Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 5064/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression" sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 6. From the records, we noticed that the assessee

Kalyani Mukand Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(3), Aaykar Bhavan

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

ITA 5063/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-16(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom18 Media Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 5658/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Respondent: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. Adv

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

recorded requisite satisfaction before invoking the said provisions. 36.1 The Revenue being aggrieved, against the order of the then CIT(A) preferred 1st appeal before the Tribunal. And therefore the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case pertaining to AY 2007-08, has also dealt

A B Propmart Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] A B Propmart Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Ward-1(1), Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002. Delhi Pan-Aagca7340G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca & Shri Ajay Marwah, Ca Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the order of AO therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the addition of Rs.8, 19,09,656/- u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Income

Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Gurugram, Haryana, India vs. The Deputy Or Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram, Haryana, India

The appeal is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per the directions given to AO/TPO above

ITA 4439/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Alfanar Energy Private Limited, Vs Dcit, 16Th Floor, Building No.5, Circle-1(1), Block-C, Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram. Phase Iii, Gurugram, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Aapca2671M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kalra, Advocate; Ms Reema Grewal, Ca; & Ms Snigdha Gautam, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Of The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Gurugram (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ld. Ao’) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. The Assessee Is Part Of The Multinational Group, Arabian Trading Group Which Is Based Out Of Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia & Is Engaged In Generating, Developing, Accumulating, Distributing & Supplying Electricity By Setting Renewable Energy Power Plants. This Is The First Year Of The Assessment Of The Assessee. During The Year, The Assessee Has Undertaken The Following International Transactions:- International Transactions Transfer Pricing Method Total Value Of International Transactions (In Inr) Issue Of Compulsorily Other Method 2,44,77,26,400 Convertible Debentures (Ccds) Interest On Ccds Comparable Uncontrolled 46,52,90,098 Price (Cup) Method Issue Of Equity Shares Other Method 45,04,31,700

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

verify certain facts regarding the ALP determination of the interest on the debentures/CCDs and, accordingly, when 9 both the sides were in appeal before the Tribunal, the coordinate Bench observed in M/s City Corporation Limited (supra) that when the matter came up before the CIT(A), the assessee had contended

DCIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi vs. Praveen Kumar Jolly, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in No

ITA 1654/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit, Vs Praveen Kumar Jolly, Central Circle-06, 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aagpj0144C Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

adjudicated the issues raised regarding re-opening of the assessment. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Charan Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4522/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Ito, Vs M/S. Charan Renewable Ward-6(1),C.R. Building, Pvt.Ltd., A-24, New Krishna New Delhi Park, Near Viaks Puri, New Delhi-110018. Pan-Aaect0790K Appellant Respondent Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2025 Order

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 31.05.2016 has allowed the appeal of the assessee thus, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dilip Kantilal Kubavat, Porbandar vs. ITO WD 2(3), Porbandar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.522/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2016-17 Dilip Kantilal Kubavat Ito बनाम/ Prop. Vijay Dairy Farm, Ward 2 (3), Vs Near Ramdhun S V P Road, Porbandar 360575 Porbandar - 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Azfpk8009B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /10/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.03.2025, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In-After Referred To As “The Act”) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds Of Appeal. However, The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not To Consider The Basic Fact That The Assessee Has Gifted The Property To His Sister In Law (Younger Brother'S Wife) That Is, To A Relative For A Consideration Dilip Kantilal Kubavat

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Ld. Sr-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

condonation of delay before Ld.CIT(A) and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence ... just reiterated the facts narrated in the assessment order and confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer, therefore assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that the transaction under consideration is a gift by one family member to another family member

Manilal Bhanabhai Gohil Education Trust, Na vs. Arivs.ITO(Exemption), Surat

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

ITA 1079/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1079/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Manilal Bhanabhai Gohil Income Tax Officer (Exemption), बनाम/ Education Trust, Surat, Ayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Post Box No.68, Nr. Ramaben Gate, Surat-395 001 Hospital, Bodali, Navsari- 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabtm 9517 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80I

upheld the processing of return and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee-trust has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee-trust filed a small paper book enclosing therein the audit report and written submission. He submitted that

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

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

Mukesh S Kedia HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 678/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Asst. Years : (2015-16 to 2018-19) - 3– 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) lacks clear reasoning and independent analysis. Specifically

Mukesh S Kedia HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 677/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Mukesh S Kedia HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 676/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Mukesh S Kedia HUF, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 675/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr DR

Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Goyam Gunanuragi Shri Jaybhanu Bhakti Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1481/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

remains un-complied and failed to submit substantial documentary evidences. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the Assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the outset, we find that notices were issued from time to time to furnish details/documents as called for. The Ld.CIT