← 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

Natwest Markets Plc - India Branch, Kolkata vs. CIT (It & Tp), Cir- 1(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 997/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Commissioner Of Income Tax Natwest Markets Plc-India (International Taxation & Branch Transfer Pricing) 907, Regus, 9Th Floor, Ps Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, Vs. Arcadia, 4A, Abanindra Nath 2Nd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Thakur Sarani, Kolkata-700016 Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct8020E Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sandeep Lakra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Lakra, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

thereafter, applied rate of 40% plus the educational cess and surcharge to bring the said amount under tax. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before the Tribunal against he said final order. Natwest Markets PLC_India Branch; A.Y. 2018-19 9. The ld. AR vehemently submitted that having regard

Subramani Palani Muthu, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 1779/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Subramani Palani Muthu, The Income Tax Officer, No.53, Seshachala Mudali Street, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 19(6), Saidapet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 015. Pan: Abnpm 2188F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Padmanabhan, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

know that the appeal has been dismissed by the NFAC, Delhi. Immediately, the assessee sought legal advice and took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the reason stated for condonation of delay, we find there is sufficient cause

Jayas Educational & Charitable Trust, Tiruvallur vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 1778/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ganesan VigneshFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

seeking approval u/s.80G of the Act as not maintainable. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in filing Form 10AB before

Sri Sorimuthayannar Temple, Tirunelveli vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 1754/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1754/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sri Sorimuthayannar The Income Tax Officer, Temple, Vs. Exemptions Ward, Sinvampatti Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli. Tirunelveli – 627 416. Pan: Aabth 0590D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri V. Arunachalesh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri V. Arunachalesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 250

about the order passed only on receipt of recovery notice dated 16.04.2025. Immediately, the assessee seeks legal advice and took steps to file appeal before the Tribunal, resulting in delay in filing the appeal. On perusal of the reason stated for condonation of delay, we find there is sufficient cause ... dismissed the appeal ex-parte without condoning the delay. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a temple and completely dependent on the Chartered Accountant for compliance. The Ld.AR submitted that

Periya Valavadi Paccs, Valavadi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Tirupur

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

ITA 1733/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1733/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Periya Valavadi Primary The Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Co-Operative Vs. Ward 2(4), Credit Society, Tirupur K 2579, Periya Valavadi Paccs, Valavadi, Valavadi S.O., Tiruppur – 642 132. Pan: Aabap 9223E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Smt. S. Mathangi, Advocate (Through Virtual Mode) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit & Smt. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Smt. S. Mathangi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT &
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 80P

reasons for belated filing of this appeal. On perusal of the same, we find there is sufficient reason for delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. Hence, we condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose off the appeal on merits. 4. Brief facts ... assessee, the FAA confirmed the order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee’s representation dated 03.06.2023 to CBDT praying for condonation of delay in filing return of income u/s.139

DCIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Vestas Technology R & D Chennai P. Ltd, Chennai Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1482/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1482/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vestas Technology R & D Income Tax, Chennai P. Ltd., Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Radial It Park, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. Survey No. 141/14A, 200 Feet Radial Road, Zamin Pallavaram, Kanchipuram 600 117. [Pan:Aaccv4768P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing, The Ld. Ar Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A. Submits That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Less Than The Monetary Limit Of ₹.60,00,000/- Fixed By The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. C. Sowndarya, C.A

issues on hand with regard to the tax effect and the monetary limits. Thus, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.60,00,000/- in this appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the Appellant- 3 I.T.A. No.1482/Chny/25 Revenue

Jairam Kethamaranahalli Ramachandra, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 877/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri. Jairam Kethamaranahalli Ramachandra, Vs. Ito, 17/1 1St Bock 11Th Cross, Rajajinagar, Ward – 2(2)(2), Bangalore – 560 010. Bangalore. Pan : Apepr 0592 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gokul H. R,Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Gokul H. R,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147

basis of materials available on records and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel reiterated the statement of facts submitted before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was not aware about the income

Shri. Balaji Vividodeeshagala Souharda Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dated 31st May 2024. The statutory time limit for filing an appeal before the Tribunal is sixty Page 2 of 9 days from the date of receipt of the appellate order. In the present case, however, the appeal

K T G Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 596/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 K T G Educational Trust, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Sy No.93, Sreegangadakaval, Hegganahalli Ward – 1, Cross Vishwneedam Post Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 091, Karnataka. Pan : Aabtk 0016 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ankur Pai Dhugat, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Balusamy N, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Ankur Pai Dhugat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)

basis of material available before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Counsel submitted that the concerned person who was looking after the accounts of the assessee has left the institution, therefore, the notices

Sarojamma, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 69A

This appeal has come up before us for consideration of the application filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the AO passed an order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 27.03.2023, determining ... Hence, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 13. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 14. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessment order passed by the faceless jurisdiction is without authority of law. He pointed

Vinayaka Murthy, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 232/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Paresh S Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 115B

computed under the new tax regime was upheld. 12. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 13. The learned AR before us reiterated the assessee’s submission as made during the first appellate proceeding. The learned AR further argued

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3903/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of ra and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal

Sanjeevan Seva Rakshan Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 3712/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.3712/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: N.A) Sanjeevan Seva V/S. Commissioner Of Income Rakshan Trust बिाम Tax (Exemption), Mumbai Sanjeevan Seva Rakshan Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Trust Block No. B-41, Building, Pedder Road, Dr Madhugiri Coop Plot No. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, 408, V.N. Pura Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai Chembur 400071 400026 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Abdts3238G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Haridas Bhat राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Cit Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani (CIT DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

account of late filing vide order dated 24.03.2025. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(E) the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It has been submitted by the AR that the trust being newly established, did not understand the relevant provisions correctly and was under

M/S. International Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Total TP Adjustments 1,43,59,046/- 4.4. Aggrieved by the directions of Hon'ble DRP, assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal which passed an order on 06.06.2019, granting substantial relief. Giving effect to the order passed by the Tribunal, ld. TPO deleted the adjustment made in relation

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

effect and the monetary limit.” 3. At the outset we note that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. The same have been perused and we find ... 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) whereby the monetary limit of Rs.60 Lakhs prescribed in respect of appeal before the Tribunal. Since the present appeal is in respect of imposition of penalty, the same is not covered by the exceptions prescribed in the said

Allknown Marketers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2394/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rishi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 68

erred in charging of Interest of Rs.14,833/- u/s.234B. 3. There is a delay of 35 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. In the affidavit Assessee has given the reason for this delay ... before the CIT(A), before whom also no compliances were made. The first appeal was dismissed for non- prosecution. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the above stated facts and took us through the affidavit explaining non-appearance

Kwality Foods, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2382/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Foods Deputy Commissioner Of Income 1106, 11Th Floor, Range Tax, Cc- 1(1), Heights, Behrambaug, Vs. Mumbai Jogeswari West, Mumbai - 400102 (Pan : Aaifk0502D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Pooja Chauhan, Ca Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Chauhan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 40Section 69C

appeal." 2. At the outset, we note that there is a delay of 644 days noted by the registry in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal for which a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. The reason given for the delay relates

Sachin Vasant Masurkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2060/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2060/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sachin Vasant V/S. Dcit Circle 16(3), Masurkar Mumbai बिाम Office No. 104, 201, 1St Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Floor, National 400002 Insurance Building Dn Road, Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Afwpm9401L .. Appellant/अपीलाथी Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya M. Rai- Sr Dr 18.07.2025 स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.01.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal. “1. Natural Justice

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai- SR DR
Section 250Section 270Section 354Section 56(2)(x)

confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,74,700/-. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has filed the following written submissions in support of his contention that the reference to the DVO was mandatory: “FACTS

Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee both the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal by way of ra and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -Exemption-1, Mumbai vs. Hemendra Kothari Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5665/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate and Shri ManojFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

total assessed income was arrived at by taking the total income as per the intimation issued u/s.143(1). 5. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the first appellate order passed against the assessment order u/s.143(3). There is no appeal by the assessee against the first appellate order ... survives. Accordingly, this appeal has become redundant and is accordingly disposed in favour of the assessee. Against this disposal, Revenue is not in appeal before the Tribunal. 6.2. Keeping the two first appellate orders by ld. CIT(A) in juxtaposition and taking into account the detailed discussions made