← 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

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 3429/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

Inmarsat Solutions Bv, Netherlands vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Intl. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarinmarsat Solutions B. V., Vs. Acit, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, International Taxation, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar Circle-2(1)(1), Delhi (West), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacci9974L Assessee By : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)

assessment after making the addition of Rs 66,85,72,650/- 4. Aggrieved the order of the DRP the assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal. 5. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that the issues are squarely covered by assessee's own cases

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bharti Jain, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5717/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward 1(1), Vs. Bharti Jain, Faridabad Qd-61, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-88 (Pan: Aftpg37441G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Patwari, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

this regard, hence, he deleted the addition in dispute by partly allowing the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable as AO in his remand

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 has confirmed the order passed by AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- A. u/s 147 Unlawful Reopening and conduct of Assessment Proceedings i. The re-assessment proceedings

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

vide impugned order dated 12.02.2024, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That Ld. AO and Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances by adding

Uniproducts (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6596/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhuniproducts (India) Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 27(1), Khasra No. 360-361, Room No. 193, C.R. Bldg, Village Jonapur, New Delhi – 110 002 Mehraulli Delhi – 110 047 (Pan:Aaacu0224D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30 .09.2025

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Rai Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 56(2)(vvib)

vide his impugned order dated 04.07.2018 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. We find that there is no dispute about the Valuation Report prepared by the assessee in regard

DCIT, Circle- 1(2), New Delhi vs. Adventure Resorts and Cruises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well Assessee’s cross objection both are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5877/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhdcit, Circle 1(2), Vs.Adventure Resorts Room No. 368, C.R. Building & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. I.P. Estate, New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan:Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.198/Del/2022 (Asstt. Year : 2014-15) Adventure Resorts Vs. Dcit, Circle 1(2) & Cruises Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 611, Surya Kiran Building, Kg Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 (Pan: Aaacf6111G) (Appellant) (Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By :Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

genuinely made sales out of purchases made and profit of Rs.84,80,760/- has been declared on such transactions.” Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the Ld.Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the case

M/S. Alvin Reality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1620/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 14.09.2016 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing. It is noted that since filing of appeal

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

sake of convenience and brevity. I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 256/GTY/2024: “1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case, learned A.O. was not justified ... dated 08.11.2024, 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. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that consequent to the search and seizure

Bhagya Kalita, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

sake of convenience and brevity. I.T.A. Nos.: 256 & 257/GTY/2024 Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 Bhagya Kalita. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 256/GTY/2024: “1. For that under the facts & circumstances of the case, learned A.O. was not justified ... dated 08.11.2024, 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. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that consequent to the search and seizure

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

make in-depth enquiry and then frame the assessment order. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has issued notice to the assessee, which

Saroj Devi, Patna vs. ITO, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

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

ITA 242/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

instant appeal within 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. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the order

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Muzaffarpur vs. Ajit Kumar, Bettiah

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

ITA 239/PAT/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69

which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... partly allowed.” 5. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. In this case, a survey was carried out and subsequent

Bajrang Wire Products (India) Private Limited vs. DCIT Circle -4-Jaipur, Rjn-C-(104)(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Athrav Mundra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharma Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 250Section 3Section 80ASection 80J

appeal of the assessee as not maintainable Being dis-satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his written

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Jaipur vs. Bharat Kumar Manghnani, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69Section 69A

assessee by deleting the additions. Now, being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the revenue has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. DR supported the order of the A.O. and submitted

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted the ground-wise written submissions as were made

Sh. Kulwant Singh Lamba, Panchkula vs. PCIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 270/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kulwant Singh Lamba, Vs Pcit, #853, Sector 12-A, Panchkula Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagpl0618P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Physical Hearing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR
Section 263

Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula dated 03.02.2022 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal

Yusufbhai Adambhai Vahora, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalyusufbhai Adambhai Vahora, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ismail Nagar, Ward-1, B/H Rolling Mill,Bhalej Road, Anand. Anand-388001 [Pan :Aquom8984 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The revenue found that the assessee had deposited Rs.13

Mateshwari Bus Operation Private Limited, Ahemdabad vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward 2, Ahemdabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1073/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalmateshwari Bus Operations Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Tds, Ward-2, U-7, Swastik House, Near Old Ahmedabad. High Court, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. [Pan :Ahmm13678 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Amit Mundhra, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:- Delay Condoned This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ In Short), Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Treating The Bona Fide Inter- Corporate Loan Of Rs.20,00,000/- Advanced By The Assessee To M/S Tak Bus Operations Pvt. Ltd. As "Deemed Dividend" Under Section 2(22)(E) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & In Holding The Assessee To Be An Assessee In Default Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) For Not Deducting Tax At Source Under Section 194 Of The Act. The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Transaction Was A Commercial Loan, Fully Disclosed & Subsequently Repaid By The Recipient, The Assessee Was Not The Beneficial Owner Of Shares In The Recipient Company, No Benefit Accrued To Any Shareholder Individually & The Conditions Of Section 2(22)(E) Were Not Satisfied Either In Letter Or In Spirit. The Impugned Order Is Therefore Bad In Law, Based On Presumptions & Liable To Be Quashed In Its Entirety.” Maheshwari Bus Operation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year 2015-16 - 2–

For Appellant: Shri Amit Mundhra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201(1)Section 250

assessee vide an ex-parte order dated 21.02.2025. 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, during the year under consideration, the assessee extended a loan of Rs.20

Marwadi Navyuvak Vachanalaya, Latur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 561/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandamarwadi Navyuvak Vachanalaya Cit(Exemption), Pune Marwadi Navyuvak Vachanal, Vs. Main Road, Latur – 413512 Pan: Aabtm2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

provisional registration granted earlier u/s 12AB of the Act. 4 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Income