“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

Ritesh Aggarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 16(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statisti...

ITA 200/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Ritesh Aggarwal, Ito-16(3)(3), D 704, Imperial Heights Best Colony Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Road, Goregaon West, Opp. Vs. Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Goregaon Fire Bridge, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400104. Pan No. Aadpa 6828 R Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 143(3)Section 147

additions sustained by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has additions sustained by the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal, raising the grounds as reproduced

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd ( Foremerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 80

partly allowed the claims of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before this Tribunal. ITA No. 5510 & 5652/Mum/2012; 6 A.Y. 2007-08 Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd. (Formerly Known as Bajaj Auto Ltd.) 5. At the outset ... mould and dies as revenue expenditure accepting the explanation provided by the Assessee. 16.3. Being aggrieved, the Revenue has carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal 16.4. We have given thoughtful consideration to rival submission and perused the material on record. We find that while adjudicating identical issue

Keller Asiapacific Limited, Singapore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Taxation

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

ITA 3540/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.3540/दिल्ली/2023 (नि.व. 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anjula Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Knowledge Skill, etc to its AE. In preceding assessment years, the AO made addition for similar reasons. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. However, the appeals of the assessee were allowed on the technical issue of DIN. Hence, this is the first year for adjudication

Avinandita Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bhuabenswar

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

ITA 366/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 366/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Avinandita Mohanty,………………...….………Appellant Plot No. 130, M/S. S.M. Consultants, Sm Tower, Mancheswar Industrial Area, Bhubaneswawr-751010, Odisha [Pan:Bazpm0561N] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…….Respondent Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar, Aayakar Bhawan Anne, Bhubaneswar-751007, Odisha Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 246A

Income Tax (Appeals), Bhubaneswar-2 has dismissed the appeal. On being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. From the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before

Dhrupad Music Foundation, Karanjasul vs. Commissioner-of-Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 318/CTK/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 318/Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Dhrupad Music Foundation,…………...………Appellant Karanjasul, Chandaneswar, Karanja Sole, Balaswar-756085, Odisha [Pan:Aadtd5990R] -Vs.- Commissioner Of Income Tax,..…………..….Respondent (Exemption), Hyderabad, Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana Appearances By: Shri Ananta Naryan Singhbabu, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(ii)

appeal of the assessee. 2 Dhrupad Music Foundation 4. Dissatisfied with the decision of the ld. CIT(Exemption), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the Bench that the impugned order be set aside and remitted

Pannaben Gunvanbhai Desai L/H of Late Gunvanrai Vasanji Desai, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Pannaben Gunvanvai Desai, Vs. Ito, L/H Of Late Gunvanrai Vasanji Ward – 3, Desai, Vapi 01-Desai Fakliyu, Pardi – Parners – Valsad - 396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acypd7934Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appellant had not furnished any documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing 20 pages including copy of submission made

Hasmukhbhai Vallabhbhai Rakholiya, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Surat

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

ITA 1229/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1229/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Vallabhbhai Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ Rakholiya Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat, Aayakar Vs. Plot No. A/2/5,Road No.9 Bhawan, Surat-395 002 Sachin Udhyognagar Sahakari Mandali Hojiwala Industrial Estate, Sachin, Surat-394 230 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abmpr 0312 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/08/2025

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250

confirmed and appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (Id. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing copy of written submission filed before CIT(A), tax audit report

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without dealing with the aforesaid submission of the assessee. In further appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the assessee again raised a ground that the penalty proceedings are bad in law on the basis that the show cause

Kamla Verma, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(2)(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 364/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamla Verma V. The Income Tax Officer 185/7, Vijay Nagar Ward 1(2)(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Akcpv2921K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 115BSection 144Section 271ASection 69A

deleted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated Nil for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit ... technical person and being ignorant and unaware of the tax laws, came to know about the requirement for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal when the outstanding demand was pressed by the Department and that, thereafter, she contacted the tax advisor through her well-wishers and the appeal

Smt. Manju Singh, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 163/LKW/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 48Section 68

deleted. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 272 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 05.04.2023 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit ... assessee came to know about passing of the impugned order by the NFAC and immediately thereafter the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal. It was submitted that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that it was beyond the control of the assessee, which

Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Meerut vs. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: N.A. Gurusthali Santhan Aiwam V. The Cit(Exemption) Shiksha Prasar Samiti Lucknow 62/2, Civil Line, Saket Road Near Dhanwantri Hospital Meerut (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabtg8951F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 12A

being admitted. 3.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 575 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 09.12.2024, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 09.12.2024, for condonation ... also that some of staff of the assessee-society were suffering from Covid 19 disease, which had resulted into non-filing of the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period. The assessee-society has also filed Medical Certificates and prescriptions in support of the averments made in the Affidavit

Ashu Rani, Yamuna Nagar vs. Commissioner Appeal, New Delhi

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

ITA 683/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition, Holding That The Assessee Had Not Satisfactorily Explained The Source Of The On-Money Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Lamba, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 69

satisfactorily explained the source of the on-money investment. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR contended that the impugned addition has been made merely based on the statement

Shree Triveni Foods, Parwanoo vs. ITO Parwanoo, Parwanoo

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

ITA 682/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: The Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Had Never Been Served With The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) And, Therefore, He Was Under The Bona Fide Belief That The Appeal Was Still Pending Adjudication Before The Ld. Cit(A). It Was Only When The Assessee Filed An Application Under The “Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024” (Vsvs), That He Came To Know That The Appeal Had Already Been Dismissed. It Was Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional But Occurred On Account Of Circumstances Beyond The Assessee’S Control. Reliance Was Placed On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Collector, Land Acquisition V. Mst. Katiji (167 Itr 471) To Contend That A Liberal Approach Should Be Taken In Matters Of Condonation.

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Babbar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

outset, it was pointed out that there is a delay of 900 days in filing of the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had never been served with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he was under the bona fide

The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd., Panchkula vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula

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

ITA 670/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Who Dismissed The Appeal Ex Parte For Want Of Compliance, Thereby Confirming The Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Harish Nayyar, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 144Section 147Section 68

parte for want of compliance, thereby confirming the addition. 2 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee federation was set up in 1966 and has consistently been

Kuldeep Singh, Vpo Dillow Wali, Distt. Kaithal vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 505/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Tribunal Has Been Filed With A Delay Of 370 Days. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application, Supported By An Affidavit, Explaining The Reasons For The Delay. It Was Submitted That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Period Owing To Bona Fide Reasons & Financial Difficulties. The Ld. Ar Pleaded That The Delay Was Neither Deliberate Nor Intentional & Prayed That The Same May Kindly Be Condoned In The Interest Of Substantial Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)

Section 249(4)

compliance with the provisions of section 249(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal before the Tribunal has been filed with a delay of 370 days. The assessee has submitted an application, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons

Sher Singh, Himachal Pradesh vs. NFAC Delhi, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 911/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 911/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sher Singh, Vs The Ito, Village-Grahna Rampur Bushahr. P.O. Grahna, Dhair, Anni (Hp). "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cseps1911C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Isha Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Isha Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 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 27.06.2024 passed for assessment year

Sh. Avinash Gupta, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 64/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 64/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Avinash Gupta, The Pcit, Sco 1044-45, Ist & 2Nd Floor, Vs Cr Building, Sector 17-E, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaspg5892N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None (Withdrawal Application). Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025

For Appellant: None (Withdrawal Application)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 254(2)

Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.03.2021 passed for assessment year

Jagdishkumar Amrutlal Thakar, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward -3, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

activities. Due to his rural background and limited literacy, the assessee was not aware of the legal and procedural requirements for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the assessee submitted that he had relied on certain local persons who assisted in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority ... order passed under section 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) relating to the quantum proceedings, and the remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Immediately thereafter, the assessee has filed the present appeal before ITAT and has also placed a formal application on record seeking condonation

Nikunjkumar Narbheram Thakkar, Taluka-Radhanpur, Dis-Patan, Gujarat vs. Ward 3, Patan (Present Juris. ITO Ward 1 Patan), Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnikunjkumar Narbheram Vs. Thakkar, The Income Tax Officer, 53, Nandanvan Bungalows, Ward 3, Patan Besides Bhabhar Tran Rasta, (Present Jurisdiction Radhanpur, Tal. Radhanpur, Ito, Ward 1, Patan) Radhanpur Dist. Patan [Pan :Agjpt 8348 K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR

Section 234ASection 250

parte order, upheld the addition. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The total cash deposits were to the tune of Rs.43.72 lakhs. Further

Shri Jain Medical & Educational Trust, Bhuj vs. ACIT(Exempt), Circle-2, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 160/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalshri Jain Medical & The Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. Educational Trust, Income Tax (Exemption), C/O Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Circle-2, Sakar 1St Floor, Dr.Radha- Ahmedabad Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot-360001 [Pan :Aaatj 1467 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Adjournment Application Filed Respondent By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .08.2025

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80G

upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s appeal. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in denying the benefit of accumulation u/s. 11(1)(a) on Government grants which