← 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

Samiruddin Khan, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 1169/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

additions made by the Ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. DR drew our attention to the fact that the assessment order

Shah A. Anandhkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward- 5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 Shah A Anand Kumar, Income Tax Officer, No.30/2, Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Ward-5(2), Chennai-600 010. Chennai. [Pan: Aelpa7544N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.J.Saravanan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.J.Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 68Section 69C

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 378 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has submitted that he has been undergoing domestic problems causing him acute physical and mental depression leading

Kubendiran Gopi, Chennai vs. Non Corp. Ward 8(2) Che, Chennai

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

ITA 1705/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1705/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Kubendiran Gopi, Income Tax Officer, No.39/2A, Panjali Amman Street, Non-Corporate Ward-8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 106. [Pan: Aqppg5861J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Umapathy, C.A, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Umapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 69A

time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a small delay of 13 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee was under some wrong impression about the continuance of first appellate proceedings

No.4091, Mallasamudram Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1701/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1701/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 No.4091 Mallasamudram Primary Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Ward-1, Limited, Namakkal. Mallasamudram Post, T.Gode.T.K., Namakkal Dist. Tamil Nadu-637 503. [Pan: Aaban1134E] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 270ASection 80P

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 256 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACCS) working for the benefit of rural

Krishnamoorthy Ravi, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1700/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1700/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Krishnamoorthy Ravi, Income Tax Officer, No.35J / I Nickenkottai (Vill), Ward-1, Naickenkottai Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu-636 702, [Pan: Atapr4528H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 926 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the assessee is a semi-illiterate Lorry owner cum driver and hence not conversant with

Sri Shunmuga Engerprises, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 1699/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1699/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Sri Shunmuga Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, 2 245 7 Salem Main Road, Opp Power Ward-2, House, Komarapalayam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal. Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-638 183. [Pan: Acofs4025R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr. T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 69A

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 13 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assessee has pleaded that the delay was caused on account of lack of timely professional guidance as well

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Exodus Marine Company Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1691/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1691/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Exodus Marine Company Private Corporate Circle-2(1), Limited, Chennai. No.14 / 16 Cit Colony, 1St Cross Street, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aabce7216N]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 148ASection 68

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 132 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. It is the case of the Revenue that the delay had occurred on account of preoccupation with time barring works in the months

Saligrama Rajendra Prasad Rashmi, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2414/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

vide order dated 05/07/2024 in DIN No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066439047(1) for the assessment year 2018- 19. 2. The statutory time limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal is sixty days from the date of receipt of the appellate order. In the present case, however, the appeal was filed after only

Sprit Infrapower & Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

thereafter pass the order in accordance with law after due verification.” 3. There is a delay of 279 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with the reasons for the delay. The relevant extract from the affidavit ... material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2027/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Circle-19(1), Ltd. Delhi. Vs. 208, 2Nd Floor, Sikka Mansion, Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi-110092. Pan:Aadcp522P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 29, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-7/10457/2019- 20 Dated 24.01.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08.04.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,80,29,572/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed Wherein Disallowance Of Rs. 3,23,93,370/- Was Made Towards The Interest Paid On Funds Borrowed From Two Entities Namely M/S Sarvottam Securities Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Upaj Leasing Finance Company Ltd. By Holding That The Loan Taken From These Two Companies As Bogus. The Ld. Cit(A) Deleted The Disallowance So Made By Observing That Loans Taken From These Two Companies On Which The Interest Paid Is Disallowed In The Year Under Appeal Was Not Disputed By The Revenue Nor Held As Bogus In The Year When They

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 263

order afresh after considering the existence, creditworthiness and genuineness of the loans taken from these two companies. Against such order, assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal wherein the Co-ordinate Delhi Bench of ITAT in Appeal No.388/Del/2021 vide order dated 14.02.2022 quashed the order passed u/s 263 by holding

Natwest Digital Services India Private Limited Successor Entity to Nwm Services India Private Ltd., Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Assistant Commissionar of Income Tax, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2004/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalnatwest Digital Services India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Successor Entity Income Tax, To Nwm Services India Private Vs. Circle-3(1), Gurgaon. Ltd. (Successor Entity Of Nwm Services India Private Limited) 6Th Floor, Tower A, Building 2, Candor Techspace, It/Ites Sez, Sector-21, Industrial Complex, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016. Pan:Aagcn0009D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal wherein the other disallowance of Rs.29,94,64015/- made u/s 43B of the Act and of Rs.1

Vidhu Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

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

ITA 1459/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

vide his order dated 13- 01-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the ex-parte orders. He also submitted that the opportunity

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Delhi

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

ITA 1400/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16 Ajay Kumar S/O Shri K.P. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Singh R/O A-302 Amarpali Of Income Tax Circle 1 Apartment , Sector -3 New Delhi Vashali Ghaziabad 201001 Pan No.Ahnpk3721A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

order dated 18-05-2022 partly allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the lower authorities passed the exparte orders. He also submitted that the opportunity of the being

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is

ITA 1355/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132ASection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 270Section 270ASection 274Section 37

upheld. Accordingly, the grounds are dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 6. ld. AR of the assessee submitted that there from the contents of the penalty order, it is observed that the AO is not sure

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 5(1)(1), Noida vs. Ebixcash Limited, Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and by assessee is allowed

ITA 4738/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, this disallowance was disallowed by the CIT(A)’s order dated 30.05.2017. The Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed on 30.09.2020 and further Revenue’s appeal before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in ITA No.15/2022

Ebix Cash Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and by assessee is allowed

ITA 4453/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year-2018-19) M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Asst. Cit, Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Phase- Circle-5(1)(1), Ii, Noida, Vs. Gautambudh Nagar, Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Noida, Uttarparadesh. Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit, M/S Ebix Cash Ltd., Circle-5(1)(1), Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautambudh Nagar, Vs. Phase-Ii, Noida, Noida, Uttar Paradesh. Gautambudh Nagar-201305 Uttar Pradesh, India. Pan-Aaace9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca & Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Shrirajesh Kumar Dhanesta,Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/09/2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, this disallowance was disallowed by the CIT(A)’s order dated 30.05.2017. The Revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal and the appeal was dismissed on 30.09.2020 and further Revenue’s appeal before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in ITA No.15/2022

Indus Valley Promoters Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year- 2018-19 M/S. Indus Vally Promoters Vs. Dcit Ltd., F-6, Ground Floor Circle – 10 (1) (Right), Lajpat Nagar –Iii Delhi New Delhi-110024 Pan No. Aaaci2241L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 234ASection 68Section 69

vide his order dated 01-02-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the compliance of the notice dated 10-03-2022 under section 148A

DCIT Intl. Tax Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Everest Global Inc., Usa

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1270/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Bhandri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 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)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

first appeal, the appeal of the assessee dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by upholding the assessment framed

Jhaji Shikshan Samiti, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 476/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2018-19 Jhaiji Shikshan Samiti, Arora Niwas, Ward No. 08, Durg Road, Bemetara, Durg-491335, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aaatj7624B ……….Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Yogesh Sethia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manisha Kinnu [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250

Shikshan Samiti Vs. DCIT(E), Bhopal ITA No. 476/RPR/2025, AY 2018-19 4. Being unsuccessful in first appeal, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal on as many as four grounds, which considered to be inconsonance with rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 [ITAT-Rules’] hence