← 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

Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3107/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amar Vithaldas Gandhi, Dy. Cit Circle 35(1), 203, Panorama Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Jaisukhlal Mehta Road, Santacruz Vs. Mumbai. West, Mumbai-400054. Pan No. Aefpg 2142 G Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhat
Section 2(22)(e)

upheld both the additions/disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in the additions/disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in the additions/disallowance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced appeal before the Tribunal

Ankit Gems Private Limited (As Successor to Ankit Gems), Bandra (East) vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai, Churchgate

ITA 3097/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

negative. 3. At the outset, we take note of the fact that there is a delay of 427 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal, for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. From the perusal of the application for condonation

Gemini Dyeing and Printing Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2921/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 56(2)

order of AO with a direction to conduct the assessment afresh. 3. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Having heard both ... 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

Kpmg Assurance and Consulting Services LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

ITA 2396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 9(1)(vii)

provide to the appellant accordingly 6. In view of discussion above, ground of appeal no. 2 is partly allowed. Aggrieved, Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 1974/Mum/2023 for which order was pronounced on 30.10.2023, whereby the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The factual matrix discussed

ACIT(CC)-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta and Shri Niraj Soni, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 43CSection 68Section 69C

year 2016-17 which was accepted as genuine by the ld. CIT(A) in that year. Revenue had come up in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4058/Mum/2019 wherein the Coordinate Bench had accepted the genuineness of the loan transaction with Santosh Gems Pvt. Ltd. by order pronounced

Tulsi Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaltulsi Trust Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Naraina Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028 Pan-Aaatt0503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahender Gohel, Ar (Virtual) Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hyderabad [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 26.03.2025 In Appeal No. Addl. / Jcit-(A) - 4 Hyderabad/10061/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.07.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,67,53,750/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) By The Cpc Tulsi Trust Vs. Dcit Wherein The Assessee Was Charged Tax At A Flat Rate Of 30% & Surcharge As Applicable As Against The Normal Rate Of Tax As Per The Slab Provided In The Act Paid By The Assessee. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal: I. RATE OF TAX: 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dhananjay Proprietor of M/S Innovative Business Solutions, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 51(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3893/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldhananjay Prop. Of M/S Income Tax Officer, Innovative Business Ward-51(2), Solution, 2097/A-1, Vs. Delhi. Gali No.15, Near Govt. School, Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Pan:Ambpd2549L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mayank Sharma, Adv. Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 07.11.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-17/11006/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Prop. Of M/S Innovative Business Solutions Engaged In The Business Of Providing Business Solutions. The Return Of Income In The Year

Section 250Section 68

Against this order, assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In grounds of appeal Nos. A to G, assessee challenged the addition of Rs.42,85,000/- made

S C Jhonson Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

contentions of the assessee. Page | 3 ITA No.1850/Del/2019, 1470 &1122/Del/2020 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 “That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... filed before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 35. Thus, aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, L\d.AR submits that the scheme of merger was duly approved by the Hon’ble High Court which is placed

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 1122/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

passed for various AYrs, dismissed the contentions of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... filed before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 35. Thus, aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, Ld.AR submits that the scheme of merger was duly approved by the Hon’ble High Court which is placed

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1850/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

passed for various AYrs, dismissed the contentions of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... filed before Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 35. Thus, aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 36. Before us, Ld.AR submits that the scheme of merger was duly approved by the Hon’ble High Court which is placed

Shakti Developers, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69

above amount u/s. 69 of the Act, was upheld. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the a paper book giving various details including the written submission before the CIT(A), copy of partnership deed, copy

Dhanuben Ramanbhai Sonavadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(6), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 470/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.470/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 (Hybrid Hearing) Dhanuben Ramanbhai Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(7), बनाम/ Sonavadiya Surat, Anavil Business Center, Vs. A-1/102, Omkar Residency, Adajan Hazira Road, Adajan, Palanpur, Mahidharpura, Surat-395 007 Surat- 395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ebeps 7022 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

disallowance of Rs.10,97,445/- on account of salary expenses. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), appellant has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted a paper book including written submission before CIT(A), copy of bank statements of assessee with Dena Bank

Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh vs. Embee Financial Services Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 699/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 194QSection 44A

submissions, upheld the action of CPC and dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved against the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Kachha Arhtiya and earns commission income only on the sale of agricultural produce

ITO, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh vs. Cepham Dairy Development Limited, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 347/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Ito, Vs Cepham Dairy Development Ltd. Ward 5(5), House No. 2125/3, Chandigarh. Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacc8571F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 08.01.2025 passed for assessment year

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jagraon vs. Piara Singh Gill, Vpo Jhorran

In the result, appeal as well as Cross Objections, both are dismissed

ITA 230/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 230/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Ito, Vs Shri Piara Singh Gill, Ward – 1, S/O Harchand Singh, Jagraon. Vpo – Jhorran, Tehsil – Raikot, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bdipg3875K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. No. 12/Chd/2025 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 230/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Piara Singh Gill, The Ito, S/O Harchand Singh, Vs Ward – 1, Vpo – Jhorran, Jagraon. Tehsil – Raikot, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bdipg3875K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgaL, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in & C.O. 12/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 2 short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.01.2025 passed ... assessment order for fresh enquiry. We are of the view that Department ought to have not filed this type of frivolous appeals before the Tribunal. It is mere wastage of resources. It has to be appreciated by the administrating CIT (Appeals) & C.O. 12/CHD/2025 A.Y.2020-21 3 while giving approval that assessment

The Bibipur Primary Agriculture Co Op Society Limited, Village Bibipur, Distt. Jind vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind, Ward-

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 213/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Bibipur Primary Agriculture The Ito, Cooperative Society Limited, Vs Ward-1, Village – Bibipur, Po – Bibipur, Jind. Jind. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat7211K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prem Rajpal, Advocate & Shri Pulak Rajpal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, Advocate and Shri Pulak Rajpal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 148Section 148A(1)

Hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 12.11.2024 passed for assessment year

Shyam Chand, Kullu vs. ITO Ward Kullu, Kullu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 211/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Shyam Chand, The Ito, C/O B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii Vs Ward, New Delhi. Kullu. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Avbpc6625R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shaantanu Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 148A(1)

Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 20.12.2024 passed in assessment year

Bhupinder Paul Mahajan, Mandi vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1194/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1194/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Bhupindre Paul Mahajan, The Dcit, Mahajan Building, Ratti, Vs Cpc, Balh, Mandi (Hp). Bengaluru. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abypm7732L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Abhinav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhinav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 154Section 43B

Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 13.11.2024 passed for assessment year

K.C. Social Welfare Trust (Regd.), Nawanshahr vs. ACIT Exemption, Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1100/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1100/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.C. Social Welfare Trust (Regd.), The Acit (Exemption), K.C. Tower, Chandigarh Road, Vs Circle -1, Nawan Shahr. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatk6129L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajinder Kumar Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Kumar Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(C)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 06.09.2024 passed in assessment year

M/S G.S.Autocomp Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT-CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 76/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 76/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S G.S. Auto Comp Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, G.S.Estate, G.T.Road, Vs Central Circle-Ii, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaccg5774E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.K.Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 HYBRID HEARING O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 04.12.2019 passed for assessment year