← 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

Ceva Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS)-1(1)(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 raised in each of the appeals is treated as allowed for statistical purposes while the all the other grounds are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous

ITA 3795/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Learned TDS Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan
Section 133ASection 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

reply/details in response to five notices of hearing issued by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above. 6. We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record

The Bombay Society of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

interpretation of the taxing statute is strict.” 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Dadar Digamber Jain ... only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessec has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 9. As we have already noticed, the period of 5 years for spending the accumulated surplus for AY 2008-09 "or in the year immediately following

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

common issue on the jurisdictional ground on which ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Our observations and findings in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other two appeal

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

common issue on the jurisdictional ground on which ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Our observations and findings in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other two appeal

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

common issue on the jurisdictional ground on which ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee against which Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. Our observations and findings in this appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other two appeal

Mr. Rohit Vallabhdas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1910/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assessee in the course of hearing held on 22.07.2025, who extensively argued for condonation of delay of 2121 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. He placed strong reliance on the affidavit filed by the assessee notarised on 16.07.2025. Since the present appeal is against the revisionary order ... assistance of the ld. Sr. DR. 3.1. As already noted above, there is a substantial delay of 2121 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee explaining the reasons for delay are reproduced below for ready reference: 3 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah

Rakesh Gupta Family Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Rakesh Gupta Family Trust Acit-21(3), 335-B, Adhyaru Industrial Mumbai Estate, Sunmill Compound, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 (Pan: Aaatr7251G) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, Advocate and Ms. Jigna Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

loans outstanding, disallowed the claim of interest payment on the said loans totalling to Rs. 3 lakhs for which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the fact is undisputed that loans on which interest payment has been disallowed are of earlier years, i.e., years much prior

ITO 19.3.1, Mumbai vs. Salem Steel Industries, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1299/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250Section 37Section 68Section 69CSection 74

bogus purchases to the tune of 25%. Regarding addition made towards unsecured loans, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A) for restricting the addition towards bogus purchase to 25%. 3. None appeared on behalf

Rasiklal Lavchand Vora, Thane vs. ACIT - Central Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 5983/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

since the assessee could not substantiate his claim with documentary evidence, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Id. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 71 pages to demonstrate and justify the genuineness of purchase

Rasiklal Vora, Thane vs. ACIT - Central Circle -1, Thane

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

ITA 5982/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

since the assessee could not substantiate his claim with documentary evidence, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Id. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 71 pages to demonstrate and justify the genuineness of purchase

Rasiklal Vora, Thane vs. ACIT, Central 1, Thane

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

ITA 5981/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 44ASection 69C

since the assessee could not substantiate his claim with documentary evidence, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the Id. Counsel for the assessee placed on record a paper book containing 71 pages to demonstrate and justify the genuineness of purchase

Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Income Tax Officer, Exem Jivdaya Khatu Ward-2(3), Jivdaya Lane Agra Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400086 (Pan: Aabts9826R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocate and Ravi Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

cryptic and non-speaking manner dismissed the appeal of the assessee, sustaining the disallowance. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu AY 2017-18 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts acknowledging that there is a delay

Devendra Kumar, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward (3)(5), Najibabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4778/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4778/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devendra Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Sarkara Chakrajmal, Ward-(3)(5), Dhampur, Bijnor, U.P.-246761 Income Tax Officer, Najibabad, U.P.-246731 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bpppk0759H Assessee By: Sh. Pankaj Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Ahmedabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1069778857(1) Dated 18.10.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

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

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2006/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order ... protective basis and uphold the addition made on account of short terms capital gains. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. Unjust Addition of ₹1,54,00,000/- as Undisclosed Short-Term Capital Gain

Seema Goel, Delhi vs. CIT A, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2005/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 14tSection 250Section 271Section 69A

filed before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order ... protective basis and uphold the addition made on account of short terms capital gains. 14. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal: 1. Unjust Addition of ₹1,54,00,000/- as Undisclosed Short-Term Capital Gain

Resham Gramodyog Sadan, Champa, at/Post- Umreli, Via-Champa, Tahsil-Barpali, Korba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.), Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Road

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

ITA 533/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 533/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Resham Gramodyog Sadan Village : Umreli Main Road, Champa, Janjgir-Champa, Korba-495 677 Pan: Aacar9348D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 249(3)

assessee as 4 Resham Gramodyog Sadan Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Korba (C.G.) regards the delay involved in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal and whatever delay has been caused, was absolutely circumstantial beyond any direct control of bonafide assessee. In so far the delay is concerned, taking guidance

Jaya Nursing Home, Nalanda vs. ITO, Ward- 2 (3), Biharsharif

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

ITA 335/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte On Account Of Non-Compliance On Various Dates, Thereby Sustaining The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

account of non-compliance on various dates, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The primary contention of the assessee is that both the assessment order and the order of the learned CIT(A) were passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 366/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

USFDA consumption of Rs.2,08,99,216/- respectively. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. In the assessment order, the AO stated that the assessee had treated Rs.4,72,87,054/- as foreign exchange gain on capital loan advanced ... nature because the additional ground was decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT-DR supported the order of AO and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 364/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

USFDA consumption of Rs.2,08,99,216/- respectively. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the revenue has filed appeal before the Tribunal. In the assessment order, the AO stated that the assessee had treated Rs.4,72,87,054/- as foreign exchange gain on capital loan advanced ... nature because the additional ground was decided in favour of the assessee. 13. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT-DR supported the order of AO and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 349/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 (Hybrid Hearing) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Sahajanand Medical बनाम/ Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Technologies Ltd. Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium, Surat-395 001 Andheri Kurla Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East Mumbai- 400 059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs 7694 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Ms. Namita Patel, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal is less than prescribed limit of Rs.60 lakh fixed by CBDT’s in its Circular No.9 of 20124 dated 17.09.2024 for filing appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable; however, the Revenue is given liberty to move appropriate application