← 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

Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1827/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1827/Ahd/2024 & 1828/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/31, Ishan Residency Ward-1, V/S. R C Technical Road Patan – 384 265 Ghatlodia Ahmedabad – 380 061 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Alxpv 4350 Q (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chirag Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 30/07/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-2015 & 2016-17. Ita Nos.1827 & 1828/Ahd/2024 Sonalben Sanjaysinh Vihol Vs. Ito Asst.Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250Section 69A

were fulfilled, therefore, he upheld the assessment order. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and gone through the record. Though, there was a failure on the part

Aditi Mitra, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 25/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 25/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Aditi Mitra,…………………………………...……Appellant Flat No. 401, Block No. 12, Ujaas, The Condoville, 69, S.K. Deb Road, Kolkata-700048, West Bengal [Pan:Aczpb6415H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-37(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 183Section 282Section 68

assessee approached the ld. A.R. to prefer an appeal, due to that there was a delay of 251 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the assessee ... assessee has chosen not to reply and it is a case of habitual non-compliance. 6. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following grounds:- (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Kolkata vs. Expression Novelties Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed while the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1351/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

dated 12.12.2019.The assessee has also filed Cross Objections in respect of the appeal of the Revenue. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A. No.: 1351/KOL/2025 & CO No. 60/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Expression Novelties Pvt. Ltd. “1. Whether on facts ... I.T.A. No.: 1351/KOL/2025 & CO No. 60/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Expression Novelties Pvt. Ltd. Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal while the assessee has also filed Cross Objections. 5. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. At the outset, the Ld. AR highlighted that

Rajasthan Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 267/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rajasthan Industries Limited,…….…...……Appellant Birla Building, 11Th Floor, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, B.B.D. Bagh, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aabcr3997B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,…....Respondent Circle-5(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

that if there is no exempt income, no disallowance under section 14A can be made. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and raised the following ground:- “The ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on the facts of the case and in law in confirming that

Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 1600/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1600/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bounteous Digital Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Block A, 8Th Floor, Global Infocity Park Income Tax, No. 40, Mgr Salai, Perungudi, Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai 600 096. Chennai. [Pan:Aaacl6079R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.R. Raghunathan, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.02.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A) – 10, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Csr Expenses In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Raghunathan, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 30Section 36Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR Shri A.R. Raghunathan, CA submits that the assessee paid salaries to an employee, employed for the purpose of handling Corporate

Mr. Firoz Ahammad Mujawar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Firoz Ahammad, Vs. Ito, Acharya Iti No 15, 1St Cross 1St Stage Peenya Ward – 3(3)(4), Industrial Estate, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 058, Karnataka. Pan : Agqpm 8839 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh G, Ca Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh G, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 69A

also upheld the Order of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Page 3 of 5 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that during the demonetization period, assessee

Krishnamurthy L/R by Smt. Nagarathnamma, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 570/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2012-13 Shri. Krishnamurthy, Vs. Dcit, Represented By His Lr Smt. Nagarathnamma, Circle –2(1), No.152, 2Nd Floor, Hanuman Chambers, Bangalore. 7Th Cross, 2Nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. Pan : Admpk 2463 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 292B

before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel submitted that the AO did not issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act for taking decision after

Reddivari Subba Reddy(HUF), Bellary vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bellay

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

ITA 344/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Reddivari Subba Reddy (Huf), Vs. Ito, D.No.44, Behind Maremma Temple, Ward – 2, Kappagal Road, Near Hdfc Bank, Bellary. Bellary – 583 103. Pan : Aaohr 4185 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

accepted by the learned CIT(A) and confirmed addition made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the cash deposited during the demonetization period

Patanjali Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Chitradurga vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Davangere

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 342/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Patanjali Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 1, Dharmasthala Road, Circle – 1, Chitradurga, Davangere. Chitradurga– 577 501. Pan : Aadcp 1005 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivsasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivsasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 68

stating the reasons for accepting in SBNs and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that during the period of demonetization, the State Government

Gangadhara Lingaiah, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(6), Bangalore

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

ITA 314/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

appellate authority had passed an ex-parte order. Further, the assessee submitted that the said income tax practitioner also undertook to file the appeal before this Tribunal but he has not filed the appeal. After a long gap, when the said income tax practitioner, enquired about the appeal ... that time only, the assessee came to know that he has not filed the appeal before this Tribunal. Thereafter, the assessee made alternate arrangements and the appeal was filed with a delay of 692 days. The assessee submitted that the said delay is neither wilful nor wanted

Yellapragada Srinivasa Sankara Narayana, Bangalore vs. ACIT, International Circle 1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Yellapragada Srinivasa Sankara Narayana, Vs. Acit, 666, 2Nd Phase, 7Th Block, Bsk 3Rd Stage, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 085. Circle – 1(2), Pan : Accpn 8746 L Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prathik P,Advocate Revenue By : Shri.Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Prathik P,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 45

second revised return on 23.02.2022 is barred by limitation and rejected appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the finding of the learned CIT(A) is completely wrong. As per the circular No.17/2021 dated 09.09.2021 F.No.225/49/2021/ITA-II

Mangilal, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mysore

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

ITA 269/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mangilal, Vs. Ito, Pro: Chagan Agencies, Ward – 2(4), #138, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Apmc Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. Pan : Ackpm 3943 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 40Section 68

also confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, he partly allowed appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the confirmations from creditors were filed during

The Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd Successor in the Interest of the National Co-Op Bank Ltd, Pune vs. Dc/ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Blr, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1267/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Cosmos Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Dc/Acit, (Maharashtra), Circle – 5(1)(1), Successor In Interest For The National Co- Bangalore. Opeartive Bank Ltd., Plot No.6, S No.132/B, Cosmos Tower, Ganeshkhind, University Road, Ics Colony, Pune, Maharashtra, India 411 007. Pan : Aaaat 0742 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sumath Sudarshan,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Srinandini Das, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Sumath Sudarshan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 14A

basis of materials available on record and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that learned CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice and decided the issue ex-parte without giving property opportunity

Ravi Doreswami, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1192/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Ravi Doreswamy, Vs. Ito, No.28/1, 17Th Cross, Kanakanagar R T Nagar Ward – 5(3)(1), Post Raichur. Bangalore – 560 032, Karnataka Pan : Ajmpd 8501 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Vivekprasada P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri.Vivekprasada P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 250Section 270A

dismissed appeal of the assessee on the basis of the material available before him. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted that the assessee is a salaried person. Because of the revised return, the AO imposed penalty under section 270A

Micheal Gowda Lazar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 1163/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Ksp No.48/Bang/2025 (In Ita No.1163/Bang/2025) Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Micheal Gowda Lazar, Vs. Ito, No.1401, Near Begur Hospital, Begur Road, Ward – 4(3)(4), Begur, Bangalore. Bangalore – 5565 600. Pan : Acepl 0671 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. Commissioner. Revenue By : Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, Redtd. Addl. CommissionerFor Respondent: Shri. Swaroop Mannava, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

addition made towards capital gain. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the Order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel has filed written synopsis which is as under: SP No.48/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 8 SP No.48/Bang/2025 Page

Suresh Babu Chalorakandy, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1156/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Suresh Babu Chalorakandy, Vs. Ito, No. 54, Shivamayam, Someshwara Layout, Ward – 5(3)(6), Ms Palya, Near Sambram College, Bangalore. Vidyaranyapura (Po), Bangalore North, Bangalore – 560 097. Pan : Adfpc 6359 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Chytanya V. Mudrabettu,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Chytanya V. Mudrabettu,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 69A

learned CIT(A) after considering the entire written submissions confirmed the Order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 262 days. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions with regard to delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal, furnished

Getinge India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4341/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 234Section 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 40A(7)Section 43A

appeal ex-parte since the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by the CIT(A). The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 3. There is a delay of 454 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal ... know of the appellate order being passed. Accordingly the ld AR submitted that there is a reasonable cause the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and prayed that the same may be condoned. 4. The ld DR on the other hand vehemently argued that the delay should

Pavan Vitthal Gaikwad, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

ITA 3527/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)

shall give opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing necessary order.” 5. Being aggrieved the Assessee has now preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The contention raised in the grounds of appeal is that the return 3 Assessment Year 2020-21 filed by the Assessee

Santosh Bhairu Bhilare, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Income Tax Department

Accordingly, in the facts and the circumstances of the present case, addition of Rs.1,17,71,000/- made by the ld. AO under s. 69A of the Act is deleted. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 346/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Bhairu Bhilare Assessing Officer, 10/60 Kamathipura, Mumbai 5Th Lane, Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai – 400008 (Pan: Aivpb3382M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Vinay Chopda, Ca Revenue : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1065661493(1), Dated 14.06.2024 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 20(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 20.12.2019, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “The Learned Assessing Officer Is Not Justified In Estimating The Income Of Rs. 1,17,71,000/- As Part Of The Total Income Of The Appellant For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 By Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Total Assessed Income Has Been Taxed Under Section 115Bbe Of The Act At A Rate Of 60% & Penalty Proceedings Have Been Initiated Under Section 271Aac In Respect Of The Alleged Unexplained Income. The Appellant Has Provided Sufficient Evidence To Substantiate The Source Of These Cash Deposits, Including:

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Chopda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69A

willing to cooperate with the appellate authority and thus, sustained the addition so made by ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that assessee is a distributor for Amul milk, carrying his business in the proprietary

Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem.Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

only in AY 2014-15 only. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessee 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 ... been highlighted 17 Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul AY 2023-24 by the assessee in ground Nos.2 to 4 in its appeal before the Tribunal, which reads as follows:- "2. That the learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that u/s 11(3)(c) of the Income