← 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

Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi, Surat vs. ACIT Circle-1(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Surjan Singh (2002) 125 Taxmann 1075 and other cases. 5. Further, aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. A.R. submitted a paper book consisting of Certificates of Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, copy of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Saffron Green International Private Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 958/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.958/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saffron Green International Pvt. बनाम/ 2(1)(3), Surat, Room No.221, Ltd. Shop No.3008, Shree Mahavir Vs. 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Textiles Puna Kumbhariya Road, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Surat-395 010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawcs 3137 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K. Kapadia, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 16.07.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short, ‘The Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 21.03.2023. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: “I. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Of Rs.5,70,70,621/- On Account Of 100% Bogus Purchase To 0.25% Of The Bogus Purchases & Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Ignoring The Facts That These Purchases Are Sham Transactions Fabricated Through Bogus Paper Concerns Of M/S. Savitri Trading Company & Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin Which Were Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(2)

which is in line with various decisions of higher judicial fora." 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue contended that M/s. Savitri Trading Co. and Shri Mohammed Javed Mohammed Jabir Momin had no real business activity

Labhu Balubhai Ghevariya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 809/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shridinesh Mohan Sinha& Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.809/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Labhu Balubhai Ghevariya Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 3, Ila Park Society Opp. Ward—3(2)(4), Surat Aayakar Vs. Katargam Police Station, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 Katargam, Surat-395004 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akdpp0165A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By Shriajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 69

order of AO. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book including copy of return of Income and computation of income for AY 2016-17, agriculture land

International Creations Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 194Section 2Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

appeal of the assessee was dismissed by CIT(A). 7. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book containing copy of submission made before the CIT(A), copy of partnership deed

Milan Amrutlal Shah, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 682/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.682/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Milan Amruitlal Shah Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(1), बनाम/ Plot No.4119, Road No.41, Surat, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Vs. Gidc, Road Rs, Surat- 394 Gate, Surat-395 001 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaopn 6144 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

whereas the agreement value was Rs.97,51,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR filed a paper book and a written submission stating that the HUF of the assessee had paid Rs.10,00,000/- by two cheques

Basantilal Tarba, Rajasthan vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-3(1)(2), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 512/SRT/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.512/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Bansntilal Tarba Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), बनाम/ 429/1023, Sundarnagar, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs. Ahimsa Circle, Bhilwara, Surat-395 001 Rajasthan- 311 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afipt 1037 P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca राज" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing 23/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

result, appeal of assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the appellant has preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the quantum appeal against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated ITA No.512/SRT/2024/AY

Vimalkumar Vajubhai Katrodiya, Surat vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Surat

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

ITA 1266/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1266/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Vimalkumar Vajubhai Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Katrodiya Income-Tax,Circle-2(2), Surat, Vs. 90, Mamta Park Society, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate- Spinning Mill Kapodara, 395 001 Varachha Road, Surat-395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqipk 2458 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

upheld the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book containing the audited accounts for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 and assessment orders

Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 727/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.727/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (Hybrid Hearing) Shreyansh Anilkumar Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, बनाम/ 504, Rushabh Residency, Navsari, Income T Ax Office, Vs. Maneklal Road, Near Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396 Telephone Exchange, Navsari- 445 396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiqps 6441 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 26.07.2023 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeal [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 27.10.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 By Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The It Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.32,53,637/- U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credits.

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 226(3)Section 250Section 68

dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Further aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book containing copy of submission made before the CIT(A), copy of ITR and computation of income

Ratnawali Gaushala Anand Dham, Fagi vs. ITO Exemption Ward - 1, Jaipur

ITA 92/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250

appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. Now, aggrieved by 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. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submission

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 860/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Miss Twinkle Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154

dated 19.03.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the very outset

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

matter back to the AO for fresh assessment. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 6. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his ground

Maya Rathore, Jaipur vs. Assessing Authority, Jaipur

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

ITA 823/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 250Section 44A

option under section 115BAC(5)(i) within the specified time limit, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, 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 ... appellant submitted the Form No.10IE only on 10.01.2024 not before the prescribed due date, i.e. 31.07.2023. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar vs. Rajendra Kumar Mundra, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 454/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

dated 19.03.2024 allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now, 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. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the very outset

Amanta Healthcare Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order of the Ld

ITA 1088/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 43B

error, which remained to be rectified. On the second issue of VAT, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had preferred appeal before the Tribunal on this issue which was decided vide order dated 12.10.2024 and the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification. Therefore, this issue

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, a legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings was raised orally on the ground that the sanction

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ambalia Hitesh Chhaganlal HUF, Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1428/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 68

impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved by the relief granted by the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the outset, a legal ground challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings was raised orally on the ground that the sanction

Income Tax Officer, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 685/PUN/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

addition by observing as under: ITA No.2285/PUN/2024 ITA No.2285/PUN/2024 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding

Mrs Neha Vitthal Dimble, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1223/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Abhay A AvchatFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69ASection 69C

grounds of appeal. This is a general ground raised that does not require adjudication. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has not decided

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna vs. Vikram Tea Processor Private Limited, Jalna

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2285/PUN/2024[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri J P BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremeth, Addl CIT
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 92A(2)(a)Section 92BSection 92C

addition by observing as under: ITA No.2285/PUN/2024 ITA No.2285/PUN/2024 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding

Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 729/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri S K Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned PCIT, the assessee is, now in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Sri S K Gupta, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned PCIT was erred in invoking jurisdiction under section