← 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

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Thane. Aggrieved by the order of CIT-II, Thane rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 28.06.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which ... been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order 30.09.2010 allowed the assessee’s appeal vacating the orders of lower authorities and remitting the matter to the file

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Thane. Aggrieved by the order of CIT-II, Thane rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 28.06.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which ... been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order 30.09.2010 allowed the assessee’s appeal vacating the orders of lower authorities and remitting the matter to the file

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Thane. Aggrieved by the order of CIT-II, Thane rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA, the assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 28.06.2007 allowed the appeal of the assessee. The department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court which ... been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order 30.09.2010 allowed the assessee’s appeal vacating the orders of lower authorities and remitting the matter to the file

Baljit Singh Gambhir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/MUM/2025[2019-20 ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.912/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Baljit Singh Gambhir V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Tejmohan Singh, बिधम International Taxation, Advocate 527, Sector Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 10-D, Chandigarh Income Tax Officer, 160011 International Taxation, Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai 400076 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpg9637H Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, Adv. रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar (Sr Dr) सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 29.07.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Tejomohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar (SR DR)
Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148A

r.w.s 144C(13) r.w.s 147 was passed at an income of Rs. 1,92,33,930/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has pointed out that the computation made by ld. AO is incorrect due to several reasons. At the outset

Vijay Rajaram Mane, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 52/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

substantiate the claim of joint ownership with his son in respect of one of the properties. Aggrieved, the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) disregarding the assessee's contention of joint ownership as well as the methodology of valuation without

Limrass Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5002/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

time of Hearing. 4. It is brought to our notice that there is delay of 864 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and assessee has filed an application for seeking condonation of delay alongwith affidavit and the same are extracted below:- “3. The Impugned CIT(A) Order ... application for seeking condonation of delay. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was neither due to any deliberate default nor because of any contumacious conduct and as such the circumstances were beyond the control

Chattanathan Devarajan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4976/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Chattanathan Devarajan Income Tax Officer - 34(1)(1) 1101, Raheja Tipco Heights Mumbai Rani Sati Marg, Vs. Malad East Mumbai – 400067 (Pan: Abjpc6332P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 192Section 194Section 194ASection 271(1)(c)

passing the impugned penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said imposition of penalty against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that contention was raised before the ld. CIT(A) that there was no tax payable

Setron Textile Mills Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4847/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143Section 147Section 148

made by the AO is sustained.” Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The Ld.AR submitted that the reasons recorded prima facie are misleading, incorrect and baseless. He drew our attention to the table incorporated on the pages

Ltimindtree Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (2)(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4831/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriltimindtree Limited Vs. Acit, Circle (2)(2)(1) (Formerly Larse & Toubro Mumbai/Cit(A)-Nfac- Infotech Limited) Delhi L & T Technology Center, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor , Gate No. 5, Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Road, Powai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1681P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 92C

aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal is time barred as it has been filed after a delay of 211 days

M/S. Fortune Gourmet Specialities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4191/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrim/S. Fortune Gourment Vs. Acit Circle 6(3)(1) Specialities Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, 107 Adhyaru Industrial Mumbai-400020. Estate, Sun Mill Comound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacf4952B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

extent of exempt income claimed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed.” Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2016-17 5. At the outset ld. AR has submitted that the issue is covered by the order

DCIT(It)-2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Lines Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4052/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit (It)-2(3)(2), V/S. Gold Star Lines Ltd Mumbai बिधम 804 To 806, Windsor Off Cst Kautilya Bhawan, G Road, Santacruz East, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Vidyanagari, S.O., Mumbai 400098 400098 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg5389F Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee Shri. Bomi Daruwala/ Ms. Priyanka Jain/ Mr. Pankaj Soni/ Ms. Sofiya By: Shanmugam/ Ms. Anita Basrur Shri Krishna Kumar Sr Dr रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

allowed the assessee’s appeal vide order dated 28.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3.2 Sole substantive issued involved in this appeal relates to the claim of the assessee that it is eligible to get exemption of income

Dipti Jagdish Satwani, Mumbai vs. AO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri V. BalajiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

Officer and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer denying foreign tax credit. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. It is not disputed by the Revenue that Assessee

Shree Wagheshwari Seva Samiti Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrishree Wagheshwari Seva Vs. Cit(Exemption) Samiti Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Room No. 2, Natubhai Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Gayantra Chawal, Sai Building, Peddar Road, Dr Nagar, M. G. Cross Road, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarts5487J Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashant S. GhumareFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta- CIT DR
Section 12ASection 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

authority.” Although the assessee initiated the process for altering its object clauses relating to application of funds outside India, it also filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is filed after a delay of 79 days. The assessee has filed

Versova Sandeep Sarovar Chs Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3328/MUM/2025[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriversova Sandeep Sarovar Chs Income Tax Officer Ltd. 206, Kautilyabhavan, Vs. Plot No. 13 Svp Nagar, Four Bandrakurla Complex, Bandra Bunglows, Andheri West, Mumbai East, Mumbai 400051 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaav1292J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररतीकीओरसे/ Assessee By: Shri. Satyanarayan Desai/ Shri Lalkaka /Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Dated 28.03.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2006-07. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Satyanarayan Desai/ ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 40Section 68

against it and upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved with the order Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has again filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Ground No. 1: Addition u/s. 68 -- Rs. 1,09,12,957/- 4. Brief facts of the issue are that the society was allotted

Baburao Ravji Chavan, Dombivli vs. Assessing Officer, Kalyan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68ASection 69A

Bavdankar and that the assessee was not aware about the actual transaction. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is on appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before this Tribunal, Ld.AR submitted that, the transaction entered into by Jitendra Bavdankar and Bhushan Bavdankar was fraudulent and that the assessee

Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6940/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GantraFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

aside the assessment order vide his order dated 29.10.2024 with a direction to make a fresh assessment. Assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is clear that

M/S. Pankaj B Thakur (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle -2, Thane

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5592/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Jalaj Prakash, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 69A

year 3.3. There is no appeal by the Revenue on the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A). However, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal for the addition made in respect of Rs. 15,40,000/- along with raising legal grounds on the assumption of jurisdiction ... raised by the assessee. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is the second round of appeal before the Tribunal, since in the first round the matter was restored back to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. Before us, ld. Counsel

Babu Singh, Gautam Buddha Nagar vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3440/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalbabu Singh, Assessment Unit, 138, Village-Mirzapur, Knp-W-(100) (6), P.O.-Dankaur, Vs. Income Tax Department Distt. Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 203201. Pan-Eakps8485M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Udham Singh, Adv. Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 10.03.2025 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10297028 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 20.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Completed Vide Order Dated 21.03.2023 Passed U/S 147/144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Wherein The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(B) Were Initiated For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices. Thereafter, The Ao Proceeded With Pending Penalty Proceedings U/S Babu Singh Vs. Assessment Unit 271(1)(B) & In Terms Of Order Dated 20.09.2023 Levied Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- For Non-Compliance Of The Statutory Notices Issued U/S 142(1) Of The Act On 17.01.2023 & 01.02.2023. 3. Against Such Order, An Appeal Was Preferred By The Assessee Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Vide Impugned Order Dated 10.03.2023 Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Therefore, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 10.03.2023 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, it is submitted by Ld. AR that the appeal filed against assessment order passed on 21.03.2023 u/s 147/144 r.w.s 144B

Aims Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3431/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

reason stated therein being reasonable and assessee has been able to establish that there was bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the delay is condoned and all the three appeal are admitted for adjudication on merits. AIMS Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited vs. ACIT

Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3430/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 253(3)

reason stated therein being reasonable and assessee has been able to establish that there was bonafide cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, the delay is condoned and all the three appeal are admitted for adjudication on merits. AIMS Max Gardenia Developers Private Limited vs. ACIT