← 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

Rajesh Bubna, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 20, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1424/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69A

order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

Ajay Kumar, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1415/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ajay Kumar, Vs Ito, 399, M/S. Ajay Enterprises, Ward-1, Karnal G.T.Road, New Anaj Mandi, Karnal, Haryana-132001. Pan-Agipk1566F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 Order

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

appeal of the assessee and confirmed the additions made by AO. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. SECTION 147 READ WITHSECTION 1448 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE ORDER

Voestalpine Vae Vkn India Pvt. Ltd. (Formely Known As Vae Vkn Industries Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3835/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/S. Voestalpine Vae Vkn India Vs Acit, Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Circle-17(1), M/S. Vae Vkn Industries New Delhi Pvt.Ltd.), 24/5, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Pan-Aaacv3943J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. & Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2025 Order

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 92E

assessee and sustained trading additions and certain other additions made. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals) has further erred in law and facts of the case in upholding

Aloke Steels Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

without looking into the facts and submissions made by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR before us submitted that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the assessment order framed

Md Hasnain Ansari, Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 271ASection 69A

upholding the order of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order passed by the ld.CIT

Sita Ram Pansari, Transport Nagar Kuju vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh Cantt

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 126/RAN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.123-126/Ran/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sita Ram Pansari, Vs. Ito Ramgarh Transport Nagar, Main Road, Kuju, Jharkhand-825316 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Ajppp 3351 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, All Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.123/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Or Profession Of Coal Trading Under E-Auction

For Appellant: Shri Akash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee against the separate orders, all dated 20.02.2024 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals ... where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 3 ITA No.123-126/Ran/2024 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the contention of the assessee is that while passing the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) did not consider

Sita Ram Pansari, Transport Nagar Kuju vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh Cantt

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 125/RAN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.123-126/Ran/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sita Ram Pansari, Vs. Ito Ramgarh Transport Nagar, Main Road, Kuju, Jharkhand-825316 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Ajppp 3351 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, All Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.123/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Or Profession Of Coal Trading Under E-Auction

For Appellant: Shri Akash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee against the separate orders, all dated 20.02.2024 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals ... where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 3 ITA No.123-126/Ran/2024 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the contention of the assessee is that while passing the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) did not consider

Sita Ram Pansari, Transport Nagar Kuju vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 124/RAN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.123-126/Ran/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sita Ram Pansari, Vs. Ito Ramgarh Transport Nagar, Main Road, Kuju, Jharkhand-825316 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Ajppp 3351 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, All Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.123/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Or Profession Of Coal Trading Under E-Auction

For Appellant: Shri Akash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee against the separate orders, all dated 20.02.2024 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals ... where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 3 ITA No.123-126/Ran/2024 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the contention of the assessee is that while passing the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) did not consider

Sita Ram Pansari, Transport Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ramgarh

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 123/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am (Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.123-126/Ran/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Ayrs :2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sita Ram Pansari, Vs. Ito Ramgarh Transport Nagar, Main Road, Kuju, Jharkhand-825316 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Ajppp 3351 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Akash Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : All The Above Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders, All Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Patna-3, Against Which The Assessee Preferred Appeals Before The Tribunal. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common Except The Figures & Assessment Years In Question, Therefore, All The Four Appeals Are Heard Together & Decided By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.123/Ran/2025 For A.Y.2013-2014. 4. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Or Profession Of Coal Trading Under E-Auction

For Appellant: Shri Akash Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

filed by the assessee against the separate orders, all dated 20.02.2024 passed by ld.CIT(A), Patna-3, against which the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common except the figures and assessment years in question, therefore, all the four appeals ... where the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. 3 ITA No.123-126/Ran/2024 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds, however, the contention of the assessee is that while passing the impugned order the ld.CIT(A) did not consider

Asif Iqubal, Siwan vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Siwan

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

ITA 315/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether ITO WARD 2(3), SIWAN was justified in treating the deposits during demonetization period ... same was confirmed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. Before us, in Ground nos. 1 and 2 the assessee has submitted that proper opportunity

Md Iftakhar Alam, Araria vs. ITO, Purnea

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

ITA 389/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24.03.2023. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case Appellate authority ignored the facts in spite ... ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR requested that the matter may be remanded

Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

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

ITA 83/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

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

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 assessee

Ashvinbhai Laxmanbhai Karkar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(1)(5), Surat

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

ITA 82/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

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

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 assessee

Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Mori, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Bharuch

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

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

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. 5. we also noticed that assessee was ex-parte

Brijwasi Developers Private Limited, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

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

ITA 280/SRT/2025[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 250

Surat. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) passed the order for A.Y. 2008-09 on 25.08.2022, accordingly we were required to file appeal before Honourable Tribunal on or before 25.10.2022 on the basis of date of order. The appeal were actually filed on 04.03.2025 causing the delay of 862 days ... notice for outstanding demand dated 24.12.2024. Subsequently, the assessee logged into ITD portal and downloaded the order for the purpose of filing the appeal before Honourable Tribunal. Assessee, thereafter, consulted senior CA Shri Rasesh Shah after passing of the due date for filing the appeal. Hence the appeal was filed

Shree Nakoda Synthetics Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Cir 4-(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshree Nakoda Synthetics The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Private Limited, Of Income Tax, 2, New Cloth Market, Circle-4(1)(1), Outside Raipur Gate, Ahmedabad. Sarangpur, Ahmedabad-380002. [Pan :Aagcs5568 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 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 had no direct dealings with Shri Om Prakash Bihani. The assessee is a regular

Sanand Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1601/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Sanand Agricultural Produce Market Ito, Ward-2 Committee, Railway Station Road Exemption Main Road, Sanand, Ahmedabad. Vejalpur Pan : Aaals 0127 L. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

approach the Hon’ble ITAT for relief. 2.3 The assessee has contended that since it was bona fide pursuing the above remedies, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed in time. The delay, therefore, was neither deliberate nor mala fide, but occasioned due to genuine reasons ... supported by record. There is no material to suggest that the assessee stood to benefit in any manner by delaying the filing of appeal before the Tribunal. 2.6 In view of the above and considering that the DR has not raised serious objections, we are satisfied that there exists sufficient

ACIT(E), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Registrar Gujrat University, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1334/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR Shri Sulabh Padshah, AR
Section 10Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69

incorrect and unverified information, and thus, not sustainable. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer, whereas the Ld. AR supported the order

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

computation of book profit under section 115JB. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. ACIT Vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd. Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– I. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 – Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 6. During

Jitendra Amrita Raundal, Kalwan, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 2(5), Nashik

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

ITA 728/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj DandgavalFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (virtually)
Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Assessing Officer by recording as under: 3 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and in law, the H'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding