← 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

Income Tax Officer, Gudiwada vs. Dandu Madhu Varma, Bhujabalapatnam

In the result appeal ITA

ITA 40/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Smt. Hemalatha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

Assessing Officer at Rs.49,55,699/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Smt. Hemalatha K, CA-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the appeal of the assessee submitted that, the assessment for the year under

Venkateswara Rao Gopalam, Guntur vs. ITO, Ward - I, Tenali

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

ITA 283/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Sri DL Narasimha RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Sri DL Narasimha Rao, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made

Dandu Madhuvarma, Bhujapalapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-1, Gudivada

In the result appeal ITA

ITA 129/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Smt. Hemalatha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

Assessing Officer at Rs.49,55,699/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Smt. Hemalatha K, CA-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the appeal of the assessee submitted that, the assessment for the year under

Verambally Thazhikuniyil Vinodan, Kozhikode vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

ITA 350/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 274

also held that ignorance does not constitute reasonable cause. Accordingly, confirmed the levy of penalty. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the initiation of penalty proceedings were bad in law. The proceedings were

Haryana Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Section Kalyan Nigam, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 959/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 959/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Haryana Backward Classes & Vs The Ito, Economically Weaker Section Ward No. 2(1), Kalyan Nigam, Sco 813-814, Chandigarh. Sector 22-A, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabch5819E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 250

Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 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 17.07.2025 passed for assessment year

Pawan Puri, H.No 3343, Street No.3, Chemma Colony, Ludhiana Punjab, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 77/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pawan Puri, Vs The Ito, House No. 3343, Street No. 3, Ward No. 2, Chemma Colony, Ludhiana. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ayupp8464B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 44ASection 68

Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 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 12.11.2024 passed for assessment year

Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Sansthan, Rahata vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 263

provisions of law and the observations made in the impugned order. 3 Shri Upasani Kanyakumari Sansthan 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and also challenging the finding of ld. PCIT in the impugned order and has raised the following ... Income of the assessee was put to tax. Order of the ITO was upheld by the CIT(A) against which assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted. On these facts, it was held that the IT authority had taken hyper-technical view of the matter where

ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result the appeal I

ITA 98/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

sustained by the CIT(A). 8. Aggrieved by the Order of learned CIT(A), the Assessee and the Revenue are in appeals before the Tribunal. 9. The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no. 4 of assessee’s appeal is, addition of Rs.43 lakhs as undisclosed sale ... sustained on this issue. 19. Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. 20. Shri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned

Shri Shiridi Sai Seva Trust, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 856/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.856/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2025-26) Shri Shiridi Sai Seva Trust, Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Vs. Ward-1(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan:Aacts3985J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri B. Satyanarayana Murthy, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Shiridi Sai Seva Trust (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 21.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2025-26. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri B. Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

incorrect section code while filing Form No. 10A. 4. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E) , the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the assessee had been granted valid registration under section 12A of the Act since

Sunlit Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 828/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 12ASection 282

No.828/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 377 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, explaining the reasons for the said delay. The learned Authorised Representative ... compliance with notices issued during the proceedings. 7. Aggrieved by the rejection order of Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that all notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E), including the final rejection order, were sent to the email ID accounts@suniltmines.com

Lakshmiramana Bandaru, Kadapa vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kadapa

ITA 646/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

towards the huge cash in hand was sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which set aside the order to the file of the AO with a direction to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, in the second

Mansoor Basha Court, Adoni vs. ITO., Ward-1, Adoni

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

ITA 437/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.437/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Mansoor Basha Court Vs. Income Tax Officer Adoni Ward-1 Pan:Amwpc4315J Adoni (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank, AdvocateFor Respondent: : P SUMITHA, Sr. AR

learned CIT (A)-/ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 Chandigarh, for the A.Y.2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The learned Counsel ... assessee could not file the appeal within the period of limitation before the learned CIT (A) and also could not file the appeal before the Tribunal within the limitation period as the assessee could not approach the Tax Consultant due to the ongoing illness and treatment. Thus, the learned Counsel

Anantha Pvc Pipes Private Limited, Anantapur vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Kurnool

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

ITA 317/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.317/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Circle-1, Kurnool. Anantapur. Pan:Aagca0936J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.A. & Shri P. Rosi Reddy, Advocate. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Anantha Pvc Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 25.07.2024 For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The

For Appellant: Shri T. Rajendra Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 147 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the ITA No.317/Hyd/2025 2 assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit explaining the reasons. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted ... only when its bank account was attached by the Revenue in January 2025, and thereafter, it immediately engaged legal counsel and filed the appeal before this Tribunal. The delay of 147 days, therefore, was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. In support

Siva Mohan Reddy Parvathreddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 199/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 131Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

appeal before the CIT(A), who, vide his order dated 21.09.2020 allowed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Subsequently, the Department filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which, vide its order, dated 29.08.2022, restored the issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to decide the issue

Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 11/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Foundation, Hyderabad. Pan:Aakcb1687M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundaton (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 24.10.2024 For The A.Y. 2024-25. Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Venkatram ReddyFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

No.11/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of four days in filing the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons for the said delay. It has been submitted that while filing the online appeal before ... provisions of Section 12AB of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said rejection order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(E) is wholly non-speaking and has been

Ocean Sparkle Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1030/HYD/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Sri Sourabh Soparkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801A

Officer towards forex gain on restatement of liability. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 7 ITA.No.1030/Hyd./2024 6. Sri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred

Krishnendu Bikash Jana, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 27(1), Haldia

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

ITA 1105/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Bikash Jana. 24.03.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/144/144B of the Act, dated 23.03.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned Assessment Order ... accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Rival submissions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. In ground no. 2 before

Rahul Springs Private Limited, Panagarh vs. DCIT, Circle -1, Durgapur

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

ITA 2426/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

dated 26.03.2024. I.T.A. No.: 2426/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Springs Private Limited. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in law in invoking ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex parte. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Rival contentions were heard and the record and the submissions made have been examined. 5. The Ld. AR requested that proper submission could

Ponni Sugars (Erode) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 23/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 23/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Ponni Sugars (Erode) Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Esvin House, No.13, Vs. Of Income Tax, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr), Circle-1, Ltu, Perungudi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 096. Pan: Aaccp 2779A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N.R. Suresh, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

adjust the suo-motto disallowance made by the assessee while computing the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). 4. Though the assessee has raised seven grounds, during the course of hearing, the Ld.AR presented arguments

Karuppusamy Jayaprakash, Coimbatore vs. Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore

ITA 229/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon'Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Chny/2025

Section 131Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

time to time. 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 27 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assessee had fallen ill and was hospitalized. In support of its contentions, relevant bills