← 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

Ramasami Gounder Mani, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward 2, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee 2119 / Chny / 2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2120/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2119 & 2120/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 144Section 221

delay of 518 days in both the appeals vide ITA 2119 / Chny / 2025 and ITA 2120 / Chny / 2025 respectively in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is person of advanced age of 66 years and is not fairly conversant

Ramasami Gounder Mani, Namakkal vs. ITO Ward 2, Namakkal

In the result, appeal of the assessee 2119 / Chny / 2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2119/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2119 & 2120/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr.saujanya Ranjan, IRS
Section 144Section 221

delay of 518 days in both the appeals vide ITA 2119 / Chny / 2025 and ITA 2120 / Chny / 2025 respectively in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is person of advanced age of 66 years and is not fairly conversant

S.G. Srinivasan, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1926/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahays.G. Srinivasan, I.T.O., No. 15, Venkatramana Vs. Ward-1, Vellore Bhagavathar Street, Walajapet, No. 2, Barracks Cross Street, Vellore-632513. Officers Line, Vellore, Tamil Pan No. Belps 3581 L Nadu-632001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Sr.DR and the material available on record. We found from perusal of record that there is delay of 219 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact as under ... assessee as well as due to unawareness of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee could not file appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. We agree with the contention made by the assessee in his affidavit about delayed filing of appeal, therefore considering the above facts

Ramasamy Dhandapani, Palani vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1912/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayramasamy Dhandapani, I.T.O., 39, Vepan Valasu Periya Thottam, Vs. Ward-1, Poolampatty (P.O.), Palani Taluk, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu-624613 Pan No. Bhnpd 5800 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 194C

record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 34 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with affidavit mentioning the fact that the assessee ... order passed by the ld. CIT(A) as mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, we condone the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On the merit of the case, the facts of the case, in brief, are that

S 1286 R Pudupalayam Paccs, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1906/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahays 1286 R Pudupalayam Primary I.T.O., Agricultural Co-Op Credit Society, Vs. Ward 1(1), Namakkal Dt., R Pudupalayam Namakkal. Po, Rasipuram Tk., Namakkal District-637408 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aafas 8931 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 369 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay mentioning therein the fact that the assessee was totally unaware ... benefitted for filing the appeal belatedly before the Tribunal. Thus, we condone the delay of 369 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 5. On merit of the case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a cooperative society

Mr. Santhosh Kumar Ponnusamy, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-3(1), Coimbatore

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 1894/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanthosh Kumar Ponnusamy, I.T.O., Sree Vari Roadways, 64/1-C1, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(1), L&T Bye Pass Road, Opp Sakthi Race Course Road, Engineering College, Kulathur, Coimbatore-641018. Venkitapuram Post, Coimbatore-641062. Pan No. Fyrps 8460 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 124 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that on 26/06/2025 ... short, the Act). After 2 ITA1894/Chny/2025 Santhose Kr. Ponnusamy Vs ITO receiving such information/intimation, the assessee aware of filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and after collecting the documents, the assessee filed this appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee stated that the delay is not intentional and deliberate

Chakrapani Nagarajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(3), Chennai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1893/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaychakrapani Nagarajan, I.T.O., No. 45, Duraiswamy Garden, 1St Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(3), Floor, Saidapet, Aayakar Bhawan-Annexe Chennai-600015 (Tamil Nadu) Building, No. 121, M.G. Road, Pan No. Aacapn 3674 M Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034 (Tamil Nadu) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 44A

record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 63 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that ... passed by the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter the concerned Chartered Accountant of the assessee approached the present ld. AR and then filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee stated that the delay is not intentional and deliberate, the same was due to situation beyond his control. He has good

Atturampalayam Venkatachalam Krishnakumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruchengode

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 1890/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayatturampalayam Venkatachalam I.T.O., Krishna Kumar, Vs. Ward-1, D. No. 8/29, Athurampalayam, Morur Tiruchengode. Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamilnadu-637211. Pan No. Awipk 1950 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 270A

record. 2. At the outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is delay of 63 days in filing this appeal before this Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for condonation in the form of affidavit mentioning the fact that the assessee received notices ... occurred due to lack of proper guidance as mentioned in the affidavit. Thus, we condone the delay of 63 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the same for hearing. 6. On merit, we find that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under Section

ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Durr India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly-allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1638/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit, Durr India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. 471, Prestige Polygon, Chennai. Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai – 600 035. Pan: Aaacd 3568P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Suhrith Parthasarathy
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40

Germany Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), relying on tribunal decisions. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, Revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Two issues arise for our adjudication. We shall adjudicate the issues as under: Restriction of disallowance u/s.40

Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

outset of hearing, we found from perusal of record that there is a delay of 209 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal for which, the assessee has filed an application for the condonation of delay by mentioning the facts as under: “In this regard, I submit before your ... addition would get annulled at the first appellate stage itself. The assessee stated that due to lack of professional advise, he filed the appeal before the Tribunal belatedly. He stated that delay was not deliberate and occurred due to lack of proper guidance as mentioned in the condonation application. Thus

Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Bengaluru Rural vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 593/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Avalamurthy Shiva Kumar, Vs. Ito, Rajaghattarajaghatta Post, Ward – 7(2)(3), Doddaballapura Tk, Bangalore. Bangalore Rural – 561 203. Karnataka. Pan : Batpa 2333 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhusudhan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 136Section 147Section 148Section 69A

appeal belatedly before him. After relying on some judgments, he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 201 days. In this regard, assessee has fled affidavit which is placed on record. Accordingly, we are condoning

Neenopal Intelligent Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1104/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Neenopal Intelligent Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, L-148 Bhive Workspace 5Th Main, Sector 6, Ward – 5(1)(1), Hsr Layout S.O. Hsr Layout S.O, Bangalore. Bangalore South – 560 102, Karnataka. Pan : Aafcn 2569 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kaushik M, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Kaushik M, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80J

return of income was filed on 14.03.2022. Accordingly, he dismissed appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the amendment made to comply with the provision for claiming

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2083/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2082/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 153A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 875/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. J.D. Mistry Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250

assessee under the facts and circumstances of the case. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 874 & 875 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 TATA Communication Limited 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 874/MUM/2025[2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. J.D. Mistry Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250

assessee under the facts and circumstances of the case. Against the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 874 & 875 A.Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 TATA Communication Limited 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that

Ideaforge Technology Ltd, Mahape vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 867/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ideaforge Technology V/S. Assistant Commissioner Ltd. बिधम Of Income Tax, Circle El-146, Ttc Industrial 15(2)(1), Mumbai Area, Electronic Zone, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Midc, Mahape, Navi Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Mumbai Karve Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci6495B Appellant/अपीलधथी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्धाररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Shri. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr Dr) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date Of Hearing 22.08.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2025 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 [Cit(A)] Dated 11.12.2024, Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “On The Facts & In Law, 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Id Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 6,60,02,100/- By Relying Upon The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Of The It Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Consideration Received By The Appellant For Issue Of P A G E | 2

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(viIb)Section 56(2)(viib)

867/Mm/2025 Ay 2017-18 Ideaforge Technology Ltd. 11.12.2024. aggrieved with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has argued that the assessee in the year under consideration was a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacture

ACIT(It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wells Fargo Bank National Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3794/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

respect of income from service fee and interest income. Against the relief so granted by ld. CIT(A), department did not file second appeal before the Tribunal, resulting into attainment of finality to the income reported by the assessee in its return. Ld. CIT(A) on the said two issues ... thus, dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee on the said two issues, by holding it as infructuous. Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal against such disposal of the two grounds by the ld. CIT(A) treating it as infructuous. 5. In the given set of facts

Linen Design Company Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

ITA 3358/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwallinen Design Company Acit/Dcit, Private Limited, Circle-13(1), Flat No.701, Tower-Ii, Vs. Delhi. Sohna Road, Vipul Greens, Sector-48, Gurgaon (Gurugram)-122018. Pan-Aabcl7123P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Ca Department By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.03.2025 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/154/2024-25/1075116153(1) Passed U/S 154 R.W.S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 06.01.2020 For The Captioned Linen Design Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Year Wherein Disallowance Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution Towards The Esi/Epf Of Rs.20,17,444/- Was Made.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

uphold the disallowance vide order passed u/s 154 r.w.s 250 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, 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 by the learned Commissioner

Puneet Khanna, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3046/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Puneet Khanna Vs. Income Tax Officer 8/51, Ramesh Nagar Ward-3(1) New Delhi Gurgaon Pan: Aajpk7067L Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. R. R. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

noncompliance thereof does not disentitle the Assessee of the FTC. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that disallowance of FTC is bad in law. He submitted that Section