“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

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. CIT- IX, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

Tribunal and this was communicated to the assessee later and the assessee took steps immediately to engage another Counsel for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and in this process delay of 38 days occurred in filing the appeal and therefore the assessee prayed that the delay since neither willful ... order and directing the AO to frame the assessment afresh after conducting enquiries and verification. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.” As is evident from the above the AO moved a proposal u/s 263 of the Act proposing to annul the assessment order

Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Kansagra, Rajkot vs. ACIT Cir - 2(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 409/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.409/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashishkumar Bhagvanjibhai Vs. Acit Kansagara, Circle – 2(1), C-507, Imperial Heights, Rajkot - 360001 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot - 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acspk6893P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Alpa V. Makadiya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

citing reasons for condonation of delay and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 928 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel submitted that the prescribed time limit for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal expired

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Sh. Kailash Agrawal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 380/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garj & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.380/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Kailash Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle- A/1, 3003, Regent Textile Vs. 3, Surat, 5Th Floor Aayakar Market, Ring Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat– 395002 Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappa 3267 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.3/Srt/2025 (A/O Ita No.380/Srt/2025/(Ay 2018-19) Shri Kailash Agarwal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम A/1, 3003, Regent Textile Income-Tax, Central Circle- / 3, Surat, 5Th Floor Aayakar Market, Ring Road, Surat– Vs. 395002 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappa 3267 N (""थ"/Respondent) (Co-Objector) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Ramesh Goyal, Ca राज"की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/09/2025

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessee was allowed by the CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Sr. D.R. for the revenue relied on the orders passed by AO and contended that the addition of Rs.78,25,000/- as unaccounted

Sahajanand Technologies Private Limted, Surat vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Surat.

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

ITA 255/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Building A1, Sahajanand Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Estate Vakharia Wadi, Nr. Gate, Surat-395 001 Dabholi Char Rasta, Surat- 395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs 4343 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

giving any reason. ITA No.255/Srt/2025 A.Y 18-19 Sahajanand Technologies P. Ltd. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), appellant filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR has filed paper book and submitted that the Ministry of Science and Technology has allowed whole capital expenditure of Rs.30.15

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 724/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

residents have business connection in India. The assessee’s appeal was also dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A). Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also vide its order dated 12/01/2016 in ITA Nos. 311 to 315/Coch/2014 had held that the non-residents are not having

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 723/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Cochin International Airport Limited, Cochin vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Cochin

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr. AR

Section 195Section 201Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vii)

Tirupati Engineers and Contructions, Sangrur vs. ITO, Sangrur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) submitted that during appellate proceedings, several notices under Section 250 were issued but the assessee failed to file any written submissions or attend hearings. Considering repeated non-compliance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Relying on judicial precedents, it was observed that an appeal requires active prosecution and mere filing is insufficient. As the assessee provided no evidence or arguments in sup

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

appeal and upheld the assessment order passed by the AO. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is vitiated

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. Savvy Infrastructure Private Limited, S. G Highway Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2021/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kambledeputy Commissioner Of Savvy Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, B-900, Shapath-4, Opp. Circle 4(1)(1), Karnavati Club, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380051 [Pan : Aaccs 1428 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr Dr Respondent By: Ms. Shrunjal Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DRFor Respondent: Ms. Shrunjal Shah, AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

submitted by the assessee, deleted the impugned addition. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported

Mr. Sirajuddin Abdul Samad Chuadhary, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 204/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 170 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation ... appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.02.2020 dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution. The assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal who set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer for framing the assessment as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity

Shri Appu Dada Neje Dudhganga Gr Bigar Sheti Sah Pat Sanstha Mry Dattawad, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ichalkaranji

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

ITA 1908/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Sailee Dhole, JCIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed by the assesse for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred

Mathikumar Educational Trust, Sivagangai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2000/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2000/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A

show-cause notice’s issued. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee trust has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised read as follows:- 1. The order dated 21.06.2025 of the Learned CIT Exemptions, Chennai, in ITBA/EXMIF/EXM45/2025-26/1077314829(1) is contrary to facts, opposed

Mithra (Madras Institute to Habilitate Retarded Afflicted), Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 1839/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1839/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Mithra (Madras The Income Tax Officer, Institute To Habilitate Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Retarded Afflicted), Chennai. Plot No.D-171, R V Nagar, Anna Nagar East, S.O, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102. Pan: Aaatm 0481H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

correct and confirmed the same. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the cost of assets were never claimed as application of income u/s.11 of the Act in the relevant assessment year

Sri Venugopalakrishna Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1313/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-12 Sri Venugopalakrishna Credit Co-Operative Vs. Ito, Society, Ward – 5(2)(4), No.123/3, 9Th Cross, 2Nd Main Chamajpet, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 018. Pan :Aabas 6974 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 148Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

this income of Rs.13,83,452/- and he partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 5. 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 learned CIT(A) has not considered the corresponding expenditure ... being allowed u/s 57." 8. Dissatisfied with the partial relief granted by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal, seeking appropriate adjudication on the matter. 9. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee conceded that the interest income earned

Faisal Badruddin Shitware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax Ward)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrifaisal Badruddin Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Kautilya Shitware Bhavan, Bandra Kurla 307, 1A, Delux Nagar Vs. Complex, Mumbai 400051 Building, Jeevan Baug, Post Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Office Road, Mumbra, Thane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400612 Mumbai 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Bvops1660L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्ााररती की ओर से / Assessee By: Shri. Nishit Gandhi /Revenue By: Shri Krishna Kumar Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M]: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ao Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai Dated 17.12.2024 Passed As Per The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "Act"] For Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar SR. DR

Section 115BSection 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 151ASection 153Section 5Section 69

r.w.s. 144 was passed on 17.12.2024 after making the addition of Rs. 7 lacs. Aggrieved with this order, the assesse has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 5 ITA No 4081/Mum/2025 AY 2016-17 Faisal Badruddin Shitware 5. At the outset, it is noted that

DCIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Kolar Paper Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1978/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.1978/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) Dy. Commissioner Of V/S. M/S. Kolar Paper Mills Income Tax, Circle बिाम Ltd. 2(1)(1), Mumbai A 404, Twin Tower Chs Ltd, Room No. 575, 5Th Floor, Lokhandwala, 2Nd Cross Lane, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Near, Apna Ghar Andheri Road, Mumbai 400020 West, Mumbai 400053 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aadck8381N Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ashok Majetia, Ca Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: 26.08.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Majetia, CAFor Respondent: 26.08.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69ASection 69CSection 80G

partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA No 1978/MUM/2025 A.Y. 2020-21 M/s. Kolar Paper Mills LTd. 5. Before us, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the order

Vedic Foundation Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4975/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4975/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vedic Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 43-B, First Floor, Mig Flat, Ward-26(2), Pocket-B Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110095 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci8590C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Panchkula’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1077029340(1) Dated 13.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

order dated 14th January, 2019. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the order passed by the CIT(A) preferred appeal before the Tribunal and in the appeal additional ground was raised contending that the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Tax), Circle 3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 247/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.247/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Tata Nyk Shipping Pte Ltd. 6 Shenton Way, #18-08B, Oue Downtown, 2, Singapore-068809 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadct-9945-P बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Taxation), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 3(1)(1), Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi 110002

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Vohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 44B

case. The CIT(A), International Taxation u/s. 263 of the Act vide order dated 25.03.2022 had initially raised this issue. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal assailing revisional proceedings in ITA No.1067/Del/2020 (supra), the Tribunal vide order dated 09.03.2022 set aside the revisional order passed ... assessee.” 8. In AY 2017-18, the AO made addition on identical set of facts on this issue. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 1766/Del/2022 (supra) against the said assessment order. The Tribunal following the decision rendered in assessee’s case in ITA No.1067/Del/2022 (supra), allowed

Abdul Farooq, Reasi vs. ITO Ward, Katra

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

ITA 310/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None

Section 144Section 250Section 26Section 3

been dismissed by the ld. first appellate authority and the addition of Rs.3.88 lakhs have been sustained. 6. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, there is no representation by the assessee or his Advocate. However, the assessee has filed a written submission containing the revised Gazette Notification

Nirmalkumar Agrawal HUF, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

assessee and conducting necessary inquiries and verification of the same.” The assessee being aggrieved by this open remand order, is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Shri Rohan Loya, learned Authorised Representative (for short "the A.R.") appearing for the assessee, while opening his arguments vociferously submitted that the impugned order