← 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

Pushtiseva Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 4607/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2026-27 Pushtiseva Foundation, The Commissioner Of Income Tax 2405/6, Floor 24, (Exemptions), Tower A, Ashoka Tower, Vs. Room No. 601, Dr.S.S. Rao Road, 6Th Floor, Opp: Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Cumballa Hill, Parel, Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400012 Dr.Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aakcp7504M Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Yogesh Thar For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions)-Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(E)‟], Dated 27-06-2025, Rejecting The Application, Seeking Registration U/S. 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

before the Tribunal against the said rejection and requested that the present matter may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.CIT(E) held that since the statutory limitation to decide the application was 30-06-2025 and given the fact that

Vinod Kumar, Firozabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(2), Firozabad

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

ITA 236/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144

considered opinion, there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing. Hence, I am proceeding to decide the appeal after hearing

Tai Tado, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward- North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 158/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT
Section 10Section 10(26)Section 250

vide order dated 22.01.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that, the assessee has not furnished any reply nor sought any adjournment

Shivam Pipe Industries, Guwahati vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S.P. Bhati, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 37Section 80I

vide order dated 31.07.2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We observe that, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that, the assessee did not furnish audit report and Form 10CCB along

Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf, Ambikapur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur, Ambikapur (Cg)

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

ITA 172/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.172/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saraf Sadar Road, P.O Ambikapur, Dist. Sarguja (C.G) Pan: Apeps2292D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 254(2)

Vishwas Scheme, 2020 and for availing the aforesaid settlement scheme, the assessee as per the mandatory condition applied for withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal which was withdrawn vide order dated 02.07.2021. The assessee has also paid taxes on the disputed arrears on 21.10.2022 and 23.12.2022, the assessee filed

Promila Vinodkumar Bhatia, Dadra and Nagar Haveli vs. Ld. ITO, Ward - 2, Vapi

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

ITA 203/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.203/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Promila Vinodkumar Bhatia Vs. Ito, R-102, Pramukh Vihar Phase-5, Ward – 2, Naroli Road, Silvassa, Dadra & Vapi Nagar Haveli-396 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adzpg2322F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/09/2025

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted that the assessee had not received the notices sent for scrutiny and received

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 91/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

quoted above. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence/material on record which remotely suggests that the assessee

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

quoted above. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence/material on record which remotely suggests that the assessee

Afi Feed Industries, Khanna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is to be allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 127, 90 & 91 /Chd/ 2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 AFI Feed Industries Shop No. 13, Khanna City Centre, G.T. Road, Ground Floor, Bolck-C, Khanna, Punjab-141401 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABDFA5916B अपीलार्थी/Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-l Ludhiana प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal,C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 69B

quoted above. Therefore, this ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 6. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that there is no evidence/material on record which remotely suggests that the assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Ludhiana vs. Gurdip Cycle Industries, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana

In the result Revenue appeal in A

ITA 1207/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1205 To 1207/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 बनाम The Dy. CIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana Gurdeep Cycle Industries 370, St. No. 1, Link Road Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAAFG9508M प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent अपीलार्थी/Appellant Cross Objection Nos.23 To 25/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1205 To 1207/Chd/ 2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Ass

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 153C

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A),where substantial relief was granted and both the assessee and the department filed appeal before the Tribunal for Asstt. Year 2021-22. The Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 705/Chd/2023 and in departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 753/Chd/2023 vide

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-3, Ludhiana vs. Gurdip Cycle Industries, Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana

In the result Revenue appeal in A

ITA 1206/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 153C

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A),where substantial relief was granted and both the assessee and the department filed appeal before the Tribunal for Asstt. Year 2021-22. The Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 705/Chd/2023 and in departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 753/Chd/2023 vide

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-3, Ludhiana vs. Gurdip Cycle Industries, Ludhiana

In the result Revenue appeal in A

ITA 1205/CHANDI/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1205 Το 1207/Chd/ 2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 | | बनाम | | | :--- | :---: | :--- | | The Dy. CIT Central Circle-3 Ludhiana | | Gurdeep Cycle Industries 370, St. No. 1, Link Road Dashmesh Nagar, Ludhiana-141003, Punjab | स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAAFG9508M अपीलार्थी/Appellant | | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection Nos.23 Το 25/Chd/2025 In (आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 153C

assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A),where substantial relief was granted and both the assessee and the department filed appeal before the Tribunal for Asstt. Year 2021-22. The Tribunal in appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 705/Chd/2023 and in departmental appeal bearing ITA No. 753/Chd/2023 vide

Kisan Seva Shikshan Sanstha, Bubnal vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2802/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2802/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiab)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144

Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 115 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that ... compliance of the assessee. The assessment of Rs. 18525119/- u/s 10(23C) (iiiab) is confirmed.” 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1) Ground No. 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. Assessing officer

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1637/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide ITA No.178/PUN/2019 and CO No.24/PUN/2021 vide order dated 30.08.2022 for assessment year 2013-14 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. While ... said letter has been treated as farce. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), same

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1636/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide ITA No.178/PUN/2019 and CO No.24/PUN/2021 vide order dated 30.08.2022 for assessment year 2013-14 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. While ... said letter has been treated as farce. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), same

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1635/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide ITA No.178/PUN/2019 and CO No.24/PUN/2021 vide order dated 30.08.2022 for assessment year 2013-14 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. While ... said letter has been treated as farce. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in erred in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), same

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune

ITA 1634/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 115JSection 131Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide ITA No.178/PUN/2019 and CO No.24/PUN/2021 vide order dated 30.08.2022 for assessment year 2013-14 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. While ... said letter has been treated as farce. 11. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in erred in levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c), same may please

Fatima Convent Association, Warangal vs. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 918/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 12A

outset, it is noted that there is delay of 396 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Along with the appeal, the assessee ITA No.918/Hyd/2025 2 filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the petition, it has been explained that the notices as well ... Form No.10AC, on the ground of non-compliance with notices issued during the proceedings. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the impugned rejection order, were sent

DCIT., (International Taxation)-1, Hyderabad vs. Syama Reddy Mali Reddy, Hyderabad

ITA 366/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 54Section 54F

Bhongir land Rs.75,000/- per acre. 6. The Revenue, being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad, carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal (first round of litigation). 7. The Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No. 325/Hyd/2022, dated 20.03.2023, set aside the matter

Sonthalia Capital Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.958/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sonthalia Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata 3Rd Unit No.3, Floor, Ideal Centre, 9, Ajc Bose Road, Circus Aenue, So Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aabck 4477 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The 2017-18 & Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Rs. 10,14,610/-. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Appellant Company & Duly Complied With. Subsequently Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 24.12.2019 Determining Total Income At Rs.59,14,610/-. While Framing The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Made Additions Under Section 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.25,00,000/- & 24,00,000/- With Respect To Loan Received From Linkwise Dealtrade Private Limited (In Short ‘Ldpl’) & Ambala Trafin Private Limited (In Short ‘Atpl’), Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld.AR challenged the impugned order thereby submitting that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A) have erred in making