“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

Dimple Rajesh Oswal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1), Pune

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

ITA 1506/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(vii)

result, the appeal stands dismissed.” 5 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in reopening

Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1220/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1220/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Cathay Pacific Airways Limited,…………….…Appellant Room No. 14, 3Rd Floor, New Integrated Cargo Terminal, Nscbi Airport, Kolkata-700052 [Pan:Aabcc5644E] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent (International Taxation), Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Em Bye-Pass, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Archana Gupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 3

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the assessee

Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1057/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1057/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Aruneswar Mukhopadhyay,……………….……Appellant 64, Rajni Mukherjee Road, Sahapur, Kolkata-700038, West Bengal [Pan:Adspm1879J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,…..Respondent Circle-1(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 25, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: October 14, 2025 O R D E R

Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)

Appeals), he approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 49 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ... Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the merit of the case. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee purchased the immovable property in the year

Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1025/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1025/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Sanjay Kumar Drolia, Vs Ito Ward-49(1), Kolkata 48/7, Tulsidham, Jessore Road, Bangur Avenue Crossing, Kolkata-700055 Pan No. : Admpd 0082 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Chennai, Dated 24.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed His Original Return Of Income On 02.04.2015 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.9,11.110/-. The A.O. Was In Receipt Of An Information From Ddit (The) Wing, Unit-3(1), Kolkata, Wherein It Was Stated That The Assessee Was Engaged In Facilitating Accommodation Entry In The Form Of Bogus Billing, Bogus Share Capital, Unsecured Loan To The Beneficiary Companies In Lieu Of Commission At The Rate Of 0.50 Percent Of Cheque Amount During The Period From F.Y.2009-10 To 2013-14. On The Basis Of The Said Information, The Ld. A.O. Issued A Notice U/S 148 Of The I. T. Act, 1961, After Obtaining Approval From Appropriate Authority. In Response To The Said Notice The Assessee E-

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Monalisa Pal Mukherjee, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148

wherein the ld. CIT(A) has affirmed the view taken by the AO. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Ld.AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment of the assessee without supplying the copy of reasons for reopening. It has also been submitted

Wns Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3762/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriwns Global Services Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax-6 Plant 11, Gate No. 4, Godrej Room No. 501, 5Th Floor & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Piroshanagar, Lbs Marg, Karve Road, Mumbai Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400020. 400079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw2598L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Shah & Ms. Hetal SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

make an enquiry in this matter and reassess the income. Aggrieved with the order of ld. PCIT, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that details of donation made u/s. 80G were duly submitted and also examined

Ruby Rajendra P Tiwari, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 192Section 45Section 69ASection 69C

which was dismissed vide order, dated 28/03/2025, as being barred by limitation. 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that there was a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal before

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

issued by ld. CIT(A), therefore, vide order dated 02.05.2025, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has filed a compilation containing some of the details/documents relating to the impugned transaction and has requested

B D Cotton Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer. Ward 19(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

addition on the ground that the assessee has not provided the documentary evidences in support of the impugned transactions. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR submitted that as per the reasons recorded the assessment was reopened

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Final Assessment Order without making any addition/disallowance in respect of the aforesaid commission expenses. 3.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal on this issue. 3.4. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 3.5. We find that ... addition of Rs. 61,85,57,975/-. The DRP ordered to delete the addition, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the AO invoked the provisions

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Final Assessment Order without making any addition/disallowance in respect of the aforesaid commission expenses. 3. 3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before this Tribunal on this issue. 3. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. 3. 5. We find that ... addition of Rs. 61,85,57,975/-. The DRP ordered to delete the addition, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the AO invoked the provisions

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6058/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Vs P& R Engineering Services Dcit, Circle-19(1), Pvt.Ltd., 89, Lok Nayak New Delhi Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaccp0484E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri V. K.Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi -31 [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 01.11.2024 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-7/10212/2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act, In Short] For A.Y. 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.09.2010, Declaring Loss Of Rs. 12,89,624/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act On 30.09.2017. In Response, The Assessee Has Declared The Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter The Ao By Alleging That The Assessee Has Received Share Application Money Of Rs. 8,28,45,000/- From Three Companies Namely, M/S Mansarovar Holdings Ltd. Rs. 4,09,00,000/-, M/S Olipha Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Of Rs. 3,27,10,000/- & From M/S Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Of Rs. 92,35,000/- Which Companies Are Paper Companies & Made The Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Of The Entire Amount Of Loan Received From These Three Companies.

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

deleted the additions made in terms of order dated 01.11.2024. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: 1. “Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A), has erred in deleting

Income Tax Officer, C R Building Delhi vs. Virat Promoters Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the revenue has taken following grounds of appeal: “I. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

holding the same as additional undisclosed receipt. Ashish Kalra vs. ACIT 5. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following grounds of appeal were taken by the assessee. “1 That on facts and in law the orders passed by the Commissioner

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Sant Trikam Shaheb Vadi Education and Cheritable Trust, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Exemption, WD-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 956/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 956/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: Na Sant Trikam Shaheb Vadi Education & Vs. Ito Exemption, Charitable Trust Wd-2, Income Tax Office, New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course At Vill-Ranuja, Tal-Kalavad (Shitla), Dist- Ring Road, Rajkot-360001 Jamnagar-361160 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawts5719E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Viral Vajani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT.DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 244 Sant Trikam Shaheb Vadi Education & Charitable trust days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. A perusal of the affidavit gives us an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable us to exercise our discretion in favour

Deepak Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 55/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

dated 28.01.2025, which has been passed against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, dated 19.03.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that ... evidence and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. I.T.A. No.: 55/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deepak Kumar. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined

Anil Kumar, West Champaran vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (5), Bettiah

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

ITA 262/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeals within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred ... notices issued for hearing by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted

Anil Kumar, West Champaran vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (5), Bettiah

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

ITA 261/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Sriram Enterprises, Bhagalpur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1, Patna

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

ITA 607/PAT/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Oct 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

dated 16.08.2024, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 30.12.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds hereto are without prejudice to each other. Page 2 I.T.A. No.: 607/PAT/2024 ... appeal was partly allowed. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made and the paper book filed have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a government

Mudunuri Venkata Subbaraju, West Godavari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.284/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mudunuri Venkata Subbaraju V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 5-205/2, Dommeru Aayakar Bhavan, 35-29-2 Near Reliance Tower Sajjapuram, Tanuku – 534211 Gowthaminagar S.O. Andhra Pradesh Kovvur, West Godavari – 534350 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Cupps3676D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparnavilluri, Sr.Ar

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

assessee, Ld.CIT(A)dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal by raising following grounds of appeal: - “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s147 r.w.s 144B